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

[futuretraineesolicitor]

To jump in on this, it could vary massively between firms, but at FBD no one was asked these type of technical questions (in my time anyway) and they tended to get a bit cynical when people just cited jargon at them. The nature of their assessments didn’t require this type of knowledge though. It could be different for other firms, but I just doubt it would be important to have this exact technical knowledge.

Thank you so much for this insight.

 

[Romiras]

Hello everyone! Hope you all are doing well. I just had 2 questions for you and it would be really helpful if you could answer them.

1: In an interview, how likely is it that the applicant is going to be asked to explain certain terms. For example can something like "Can you describe what a Dawn Raid is?" come up out of the blue? Particularly at CC, Links and Freshfields.

2: This is regarding CC and Links again, are we expected to know Public M&A and Takeover concepts for their case study interviews? Or do these firms only test us on our knowledge of Private M&A concepts?

P.S- Does anybody have a primer for Takeover and related jargon like Poison Pill, Reverse Takeover etc. I haven't seen anything like that on the forum. I've tried looking for it on the web but that largely gave me guides from IB perspectives and are really comprehensive.

Thank you.

Answer to 1: No. If you were asked something like that, it is usually from a natural source. For example, due to something you've said, like mentioning antitrust issues, etc, or from your CV, or from your work experience.

Answer to 2: You don't explicitly need to know the technical details, but it'd be helpful to know the key organisations / players involved (e.g. CMA). You can get 'tested' either public or private M&A stuff, depending on what I've set out above.

Therefore, the general rule of thumb is: if you don't know know something, don't pretend you do!

You don't need to know technical terms like poison pill, etc. Obviously knowing about it is always a positive, rather than a negative. Investopedia will suffice.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Answer to 1: No. If you were asked something like that, it is usually from a natural source. For example, due to something you've said, like mentioning antitrust issues, etc, or from your CV, or from your work experience.

Answer to 2: You don't explicitly need to know the technical details, but it'd be helpful to know the key organisations / players involved (e.g. CMA). You can get 'tested' either public or private M&A stuff, depending on what I've set out above.

Therefore, the general rule of thumb is: if you don't know know something, don't pretend you do!

You don't need to know technical terms like poison pill, etc. Obviously knowing about it is always a positive, rather than a negative. Investopedia will suffice.

Thank you so much.

 

[Anon08]

Hi everyone, I'd like to ask your opinion on this question I found in an application form: "Please provide details of any prizes and/or awards you have been awarded by a recognised body (e.g. DofE Gold, school and university)".

It is not in the main application section where you are assessed on your skills or motivation, it is a question included in the personal/ academic details section and I don't understand if it is mandatory to answer: I don't feel like I have any relevant prizes or awards. Considering that the advice I've always received is to complete all sections of an application, would you say that it is necessary to answer to this question? I am struggling with finding something to list eventually.

I am an international student and as part of my year abroad as an exchange student I attended college for one year in London: would an academic 'award' be considered an award or do they want to know if you have been awarded prizes / awards from competitions, etc.? Thank you very much in advance, I'd really appreciate your help!

Hmm...that's a strange way of phrasing what is usually a pretty straightforward section. Nevertheless, I think they're trying to get candidates to only list awards that are more 'serious' - basically, it means you can't just make up an award as part of your university society and say, "oh yes, I was definitely the 'most improved' society member".

I think any prizes/awards/scholarships and the like can be listed, provided the issuing organisation is well-established. So, if you won any competitions at school, at university, etc. I don't see why those would not count. If you were recognised for outstanding academic performance and received an award for such performance (even if it was just a certificate/some recognition), that would also count.

I would encourage you, provided you have such awards, to list any and all awards (that meet the criteria of being issued by a well-established body) in that section. It does not matter whether it is directly relevant - say you got a music scholarship to your university, that counts and should be listed. Although it won't sink your application if you choose to write nothing, if you can avoid it (without making things up or writing things that aren't appropriate), try and list a couple of things.

I hope that helps a bit!

 

[Anon08]

Hello everyone! Hope you all are doing well. I just had 2 questions for you and it would be really helpful if you could answer them.

1: In an interview, how likely is it that the applicant is going to be asked to explain certain terms. For example can something like "Can you describe what a Dawn Raid is?" come up out of the blue? Particularly at CC, Links and Freshfields.

2: This is regarding CC and Links again, are we expected to know Public M&A and Takeover concepts for their case study interviews? Or do these firms only test us on our knowledge of Private M&A concepts?

P.S- Does anybody have a primer for Takeover and related jargon like Poison Pill, Reverse Takeover etc. I haven't seen anything like that on the forum. I've tried looking for it on the web but that largely gave me guides from IB perspectives and are really comprehensive.

Thank you.

To add my two cents to this:

(1) It is highly unlikely you are going to be asked random 'definitional' technical questions with no context. They'll arise as and when such terms get mentioned in the interview/if you have mentioned such terms in your application.

For example, I mentioned 'private equity' and 'leverage' (amongst other things) in an interview at a US law firm. Because of that, they asked me 'what is private equity?' and 'you mentioned "leverage", what is that?'. This wasn't a problem because I had all my technical/commercial knowledge, and I did not bring up things that I did not know about! (PSA: as I am sure you all know, never do that - firms will pick you up on it! Contrary to popular belief, in this instance, 'fake it until you make it' is not a good idea...)

(2) I can't advise specifically on CC/Links; however, for A&O having strong technical knowledge was (I hesitate to say necessary...) a real asset. You should have basic knowledge of the differences between a public and a private acquisition, and from that you can build a rudimentary understanding of boardroom/shareholder dynamics. A little bit of research into market regulators (like the CMA) and the Takeover Code won't hurt, but the latter is bonus knowledge. Of course, this is all on top of your general knowledge of acquisitions.

(PS) Investopedia is probably your best bet. Also, much to the ire of several individuals, I recommend Wikipedia. Don't overdo this kind of knowledge - it is 'bonus' stuff you can bring up in interviews to, in the illustrious words of Chris Eubank, 'add a little bit of spice'. Ensure your fundamental technical knowledge is rock solid and then you can garnish, as it were, with knowledge of 'golden shares', 'poison pills', and so on.

 

[Holly]

Hey everyone, hope you’re having a great Sunday!

I was wondering if anyone has completed a vacation scheme sitting in the Corporate department and could share what type of work they completed?

Also, would anyone mind sharing what type of feedback they have received after a vacation scheme regarding the quality of their work (in any department)?

Thanks

 

[Anon08]

Hey everyone, hope you’re having a great Sunday!

I was wondering if anyone has completed a vacation scheme sitting in the Corporate department and could share what type of work they completed?

Also, would anyone mind sharing what type of feedback they have received after a vacation scheme regarding the quality of their work (in any department)?

Thanks

Hey - I sat in Corporate (TMT) during my HSF VS. You can find the kind of work I did here!

Regarding the feedback I received - I was commended for my attention to detail, my ability to spot things beyond what a non-law student was expected to do, and for my structure. I know that's not particularly helpful for others - I'm sorry!

 

[Holly]

Hey - I sat in Corporate (TMT) during my HSF VS. You can find the kind of work I did here!

Regarding the feedback I received - I was commended for my attention to detail, my ability to spot things beyond what a non-law student was expected to do, and for my structure. I know that's not particularly helpful for others - I'm sorry!

You’re a gem 💎 thank you so much! Very helpful

 

[WannabeSolicitor24]

Hey
In cross border M&A, would it be correct to say that whilst the main acquisition documents might be goverened by England & Wales Law, the aspects relating to a business's operation in country X could be governed in that country's laws? Or would they all be under E+W?

Thanks

 

[Daniel Boden]

Hey
In cross border M&A, would it be correct to say that whilst the main acquisition documents might be goverened by England & Wales Law, the aspects relating to a business's operation in country X could be governed in that country's laws? Or would they all be under E+W?

Thanks

This is something that will be agreed upon beforehand but I believe it is normally the case that the entire acquisition will be governed by the same law, so the law of England & Wales in your example.

 

[Jacob Miller]

Hey
In cross border M&A, would it be correct to say that whilst the main acquisition documents might be goverened by England & Wales Law, the aspects relating to a business's operation in country X could be governed in that country's laws? Or would they all be under E+W?

Thanks

The 'quick' answer is that, in 99.9% of all transactions, there will be dispute resolution clauses which include a choice of court clause and a choice of law clause (usually, as well as ADR clauses) which will cover the entire transaction. There will also be a separate clause relating to the conduct in each relevant jurisdiction all being above board, etc. Any dispute arising out of the sale, regardless of whether it related to something in England or elsewhere, would then be heard under the relevant clause.

There is definitely an added layer of complexity when we consider the relative validity of these clauses. The recognition, enforceability and validity of choice of court agreements in Europe is primarily regulated by the Brussels Regulation Recast, also known as Brussels 1A (Regulation 1215/2012 of the European Council). The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements also remains binding for the UK, irrespective of Brexit. These both dictate certain situations in which choice of court agreements will be rendered invalid, so any such clauses in those contracts must give heed to this as claims relating to a company's conduct in another country outside of the choice of court agreement can cause massive sticking points and give rise to hugely complex litigation and conflicting judgements.

 

[Dheepa]

Hey everyone, hope you’re having a great Sunday!

I was wondering if anyone has completed a vacation scheme sitting in the Corporate department and could share what type of work they completed?

Also, would anyone mind sharing what type of feedback they have received after a vacation scheme regarding the quality of their work (in any department)?

Thanks

Hey, so I sat in corporate/did corporate tasks for all three of my vacs. Generally the tasks involved doing a lot of research into specific clauses to be placed in an agreement for a transaction and summarising why those clauses were relevant to client. I also helped research and write a client note on auditors liability and the impact of some of the big auditing scandals happening around that time (specifically, Wirecard). Other things I did, writing a memo and helping to create a template agreement by comparing different agreements the firm had from past transactions. I realise this is a bit vague but some of the more specific tasks were fixed assessments and I don't want to undermine the recruitment process in case the vacs are being run in the same way this year. Hope it helps!

 

[Holly]

Hey, so I sat in corporate/did corporate tasks for all three of my vacs. Generally the tasks involved doing a lot of research into specific clauses to be placed in an agreement for a transaction and summarising why those clauses were relevant to client. I also helped research and write a client note on auditors liability and the impact of some of the big auditing scandals happening around that time (specifically, Wirecard). Other things I did, writing a memo and helping to create a template agreement by comparing different agreements the firm had from past transactions. I realise this is a bit vague but some of the more specific tasks were fixed assessments and I don't want to undermine the recruitment process in case the vacs are being run in the same way this year. Hope it helps!

It helps! thank you very much

 

[justincase]

Hi all!

This is my first post on TCLA, so my apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere!

My question is in relation to preparing for an upcoming vacation scheme which will consist almost entirely of standardised/fixed assessments (which everyone on the scheme will be completing), without typical associate/partner supervision. How best do you recommend preparing for these? I'm not sure if it will be possible to 'stand out' in a due diligence task for example, or whether its just worth doing the basics really well. I'm also aware there are drawbacks of between being over-prepared (like a human investopedia, which I'm guessing is undesirable), and not leveraging commercial knowledge at all. In terms of prep so far, I've had a look at the key terms of a commercial contract, listened to podcasts/reading the FT etc, kept up to date with my firm's news/deals and practiced case studies. As each of you were successful, I am interested in hearing how (especially law students) approached fixed tasks without sounding too academic? I would appreciate any general advice you have!

As an aside, I completed a vac scheme last summer, after which I was rejected. My feedback was that my written task (similarly a standardised task that everyone completed) didn't analyse the basics enough (e.g. warranties, indemnities, insurance clauses, covenants), which I didn't realise at the time was so heavily weighted in the TC conversion assessment. This is something I've spent the past 8 or so months improving, though I'm still by no means an expert. In short, I'm petrified of receiving another post-scheme rejection on this basis and want to perform the best I can during this one to hopefully convert it! Do you have any advice on taking on rejection and repurposing it into drive?

Sorry that was quite loaded - Thanks so much for your time and advice!

 

[Dheepa]

Hi all!

This is my first post on TCLA, so my apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere!

My question is in relation to preparing for an upcoming vacation scheme which will consist almost entirely of standardised/fixed assessments (which everyone on the scheme will be completing), without typical associate/partner supervision. How best do you recommend preparing for these? I'm not sure if it will be possible to 'stand out' in a due diligence task for example, or whether its just worth doing the basics really well. I'm also aware there are drawbacks of between being over-prepared (like a human investopedia, which I'm guessing is undesirable), and not leveraging commercial knowledge at all. In terms of prep so far, I've had a look at the key terms of a commercial contract, listened to podcasts/reading the FT etc, kept up to date with my firm's news/deals and practiced case studies. As each of you were successful, I am interested in hearing how (especially law students) approached fixed tasks without sounding too academic? I would appreciate any general advice you have!

As an aside, I completed a vac scheme last summer, after which I was rejected. My feedback was that my written task (similarly a standardised task that everyone completed) didn't analyse the basics enough (e.g. warranties, indemnities, insurance clauses, covenants), which I didn't realise at the time was so heavily weighted in the TC conversion assessment. This is something I've spent the past 8 or so months improving, though I'm still by no means an expert. In short, I'm petrified of receiving another post-scheme rejection on this basis and want to perform the best I can during this one to hopefully convert it! Do you have any advice on taking on rejection and repurposing it into drive?

Sorry that was quite loaded - Thanks so much for your time and advice!

Not a loaded question at all! In fact a completely fair one to have.

Two of my vacs involved fixed assessments that weighed heavily into the TC outcome. In terms of standing out for these I don't think it would be any different from if you were doing live work. Focus on doing the basics really well, structure, spelling, clarity of writing. Especially because it is a fixed task, it will be all the more easier to spot people who are falling short on simple things like this. Trying not to write academically is a tough one. Generally I think candidates come across as being too academic when they've chosen to just write huge chunks of text and so it looks like an essay or if they're using particularly long sentences and unnecessarily big words. I think if you stay away from these things your work won't come across as academic at all.

It sounds like your feedback had more to do with a slight oversight on your part of some of the key commercial clauses rather than your writing. I think everything you've done so far to increase your commercial knowledge is definitely going to help. I'd highly suggest looking at actual contracts to familiarise yourself a bit more with the role each clause plays. You can find some online and actually since you're a Gold Member I'm pretty sure you Jaysen has examples available on the Gold Members forums. The M&A course on TCLA Premium (again you should have access to this) is also really great and its what I used to increase my own understanding of these kinds of things. The key thing to remember regarding any task you're given is not just to regurgitate generic information but to make sure its specific to the client scenario you're given. So if the deal you're advising on is for a tech company, you'd want to be specific about the kind of warranties - for example warranties on ownership of IP.

With regards to rejection, I actually think a certain degree of fear is healthy. I also had a post VS rejection in my second year and I went into my vacs in final year hyperaware that I needed to make every single thing count. Ultimately I think that really helped me make sure I was giving every single day 110% of my effort! Think of it this way, you've actually done a VS before which is a huge advantage to have over everyone else. You know what you need to improve on and you know better than anyone else what it takes to get the TC, you're already ahead of the game imo.

 

[Jacob Miller]

Hi all!

This is my first post on TCLA, so my apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere!

My question is in relation to preparing for an upcoming vacation scheme which will consist almost entirely of standardised/fixed assessments (which everyone on the scheme will be completing), without typical associate/partner supervision. How best do you recommend preparing for these? I'm not sure if it will be possible to 'stand out' in a due diligence task for example, or whether its just worth doing the basics really well. I'm also aware there are drawbacks of between being over-prepared (like a human investopedia, which I'm guessing is undesirable), and not leveraging commercial knowledge at all. In terms of prep so far, I've had a look at the key terms of a commercial contract, listened to podcasts/reading the FT etc, kept up to date with my firm's news/deals and practiced case studies. As each of you were successful, I am interested in hearing how (especially law students) approached fixed tasks without sounding too academic? I would appreciate any general advice you have!

As an aside, I completed a vac scheme last summer, after which I was rejected. My feedback was that my written task (similarly a standardised task that everyone completed) didn't analyse the basics enough (e.g. warranties, indemnities, insurance clauses, covenants), which I didn't realise at the time was so heavily weighted in the TC conversion assessment. This is something I've spent the past 8 or so months improving, though I'm still by no means an expert. In short, I'm petrified of receiving another post-scheme rejection on this basis and want to perform the best I can during this one to hopefully convert it! Do you have any advice on taking on rejection and repurposing it into drive?

Sorry that was quite loaded - Thanks so much for your time and advice!

Hey,

This is a great question and definitely a good place to ask!

I'll be totally honest and admit that I was an appalling example of prepping for a VS because I basically did no prep for either of mine! I had uni submissions in the lead up to one and a house move in the lead up to the other, so I barely did anything! It sounds like you're very much on the right track and are doing the right things. The biggest thing to remember, in my opinion, is just to be natural. Be yourself, don't try and come over as a corporate robot because 'you think that's what the firm wants' - it isn't! It shows a greater degree of emotional intellect to be able to present yourself in a natural way than putting up a clear facade which leaves others wondering as to your actual personality. Obviously, there are caveats to that but it's basically a common sense thing.

In terms of assessed tasks specifically, I've been in your position loads of times where I go straight in trying to show all the 'advanced' things off and in so doing neglect the real foundations. Always focus on doing the basics to a really high standard and, if you've got that nailed, feel free to add a little flair. In terms of prep for assessments, it's quite hard to say for sure as this will depend a lot on the type of assessment. A few very general pointers:

• For transactional assessments, having a fair understanding of boilerplate clauses in sales contracts, the anatomy and timeline of a deal, and corporate finance is always a good shout
• For litigious assessments, refresh yourself with some of the basics of contractual and tortious disputes (foundations of a contract, requirements for torts in negligence etc
• As with everything I've already mentioned, make sure the basics are tied down and that you're thinking of everything from a practical/ commercial angle rather than a purely theoretical/ academic standpoint

Hope this is some help!

 

[justincase]

Not a loaded question at all! In fact a completely fair one to have.

Two of my vacs involved fixed assessments that weighed heavily into the TC outcome. In terms of standing out for these I don't think it would be any different from if you were doing live work. Focus on doing the basics really well, structure, spelling, clarity of writing. Especially because it is a fixed task, it will be all the more easier to spot people who are falling short on simple things like this. Trying not to write academically is a tough one. Generally I think candidates come across as being too academic when they've chosen to just write huge chunks of text and so it looks like an essay or if they're using particularly long sentences and unnecessarily big words. I think if you stay away from these things your work won't come across as academic at all.

It sounds like your feedback had more to do with a slight oversight on your part of some of the key commercial clauses rather than your writing. I think everything you've done so far to increase your commercial knowledge is definitely going to help. I'd highly suggest looking at actual contracts to familiarise yourself a bit more with the role each clause plays. You can find some online and actually since you're a Gold Member I'm pretty sure you Jaysen has examples available on the Gold Members forums. The M&A course on TCLA Premium (again you should have access to this) is also really great and its what I used to increase my own understanding of these kinds of things. The key thing to remember regarding any task you're given is not just to regurgitate generic information but to make sure its specific to the client scenario you're given. So if the deal you're advising on is for a tech company, you'd want to be specific about the kind of warranties - for example warranties on ownership of IP.

With regards to rejection, I actually think a certain degree of fear is healthy. I also had a post VS rejection in my second year and I went into my vacs in final year hyperaware that I needed to make every single thing count. Ultimately I think that really helped me make sure I was giving every single day 110% of my effort! Think of it this way, you've actually done a VS before which is a huge advantage to have over everyone else. You know what you need to improve on and you know better than anyone else what it takes to get the TC, you're already ahead of the game imo.

Hey,

This is a great question and definitely a good place to ask!

I'll be totally honest and admit that I was an appalling example of prepping for a VS because I basically did no prep for either of mine! I had uni submissions in the lead up to one and a house move in the lead up to the other, so I barely did anything! It sounds like you're very much on the right track and are doing the right things. The biggest thing to remember, in my opinion, is just to be natural. Be yourself, don't try and come over as a corporate robot because 'you think that's what the firm wants' - it isn't! It shows a greater degree of emotional intellect to be able to present yourself in a natural way than putting up a clear facade which leaves others wondering as to your actual personality. Obviously, there are caveats to that but it's basically a common sense thing.

In terms of assessed tasks specifically, I've been in your position loads of times where I go straight in trying to show all the 'advanced' things off and in so doing neglect the real foundations. Always focus on doing the basics to a really high standard and, if you've got that nailed, feel free to add a little flair. In terms of prep for assessments, it's quite hard to say for sure as this will depend a lot on the type of assessment. A few very general pointers:

• For transactional assessments, having a fair understanding of boilerplate clauses in sales contracts, the anatomy and timeline of a deal, and corporate finance is always a good shout
• For litigious assessments, refresh yourself with some of the basics of contractual and tortious disputes (foundations of a contract, requirements for torts in negligence etc
• As with everything I've already mentioned, make sure the basics are tied down and that you're thinking of everything from a practical/ commercial angle rather than a purely theoretical/ academic standpoint

Hope this is some help!

Thank you both so so much - this is invaluable!

 

[castrooo]

Hi all, you have been amazing with your excellent advice!

@Dheepa, I am currently finishing up my Baker McKenzie direct TC application and hoped you could share your advice. I had a look at some other applicants' direct TC apps and observed that most talked about the firm's supportive culture as a reason for why they applied to the firm. When answering why I applied to BM, I focused on reasons related to the work itself and the firm's innovative approach. However, I did not discuss the firm's supportive work environment. Instead, I tried to tie this in when answering one of the other questions on the firm's diversity & inclusion groups. Long story short, do you believe that my approach could hinder my chances of being invited to the next stage, not having mentioned the firm's culture in the 'why BM' question? Particularly because it is a direct TC app?


Thank you so much for your help

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi all, you have been amazing with your excellent advice!

@Dheepa, I am currently finishing up my Baker McKenzie direct TC application and hoped you could share your advice. I had a look at some other applicants' direct TC apps and observed that most talked about the firm's supportive culture as a reason for why they applied to the firm. When answering why I applied to BM, I focused on reasons related to the work itself and the firm's innovative approach. However, I did not discuss the firm's supportive work environment. Instead, I tried to tie this in when answering one of the other questions on the firm's diversity & inclusion groups. Long story short, do you believe that my approach could hinder my chances of being invited to the next stage, not having mentioned the firm's culture in the 'why BM' question? Particularly because it is a direct TC app?


Thank you so much for your help

Having reviewed a lot of BM applications, no. You don’t have to fit a mould of what every one else is writing. If anything your application could stand out from the crowd for the right reasons rather than sounding like many other applications they receive

 

[Dheepa]

Hi all, you have been amazing with your excellent advice!

@Dheepa, I am currently finishing up my Baker McKenzie direct TC application and hoped you could share your advice. I had a look at some other applicants' direct TC apps and observed that most talked about the firm's supportive culture as a reason for why they applied to the firm. When answering why I applied to BM, I focused on reasons related to the work itself and the firm's innovative approach. However, I did not discuss the firm's supportive work environment. Instead, I tried to tie this in when answering one of the other questions on the firm's diversity & inclusion groups. Long story short, do you believe that my approach could hinder my chances of being invited to the next stage, not having mentioned the firm's culture in the 'why BM' question? Particularly because it is a direct TC app?


Thank you so much for your help

Completely agree with Jess on this! The app has changed significantly since last year and maybe there was more scope to mention the supportive culture because it was a cover letter. Your approach sounds perfectly fine to me because personally if I was writing it this year I would have tied in the culture into the diversity question just like you did anyway.