They could have not looked at any post final assessment decisions until after the scheme. It sounds like they just assessed someone ahead of the scheme ending. That doesn’t mean they made any decisions at that time.
The two decisions (who to assess and then who to offer) can be very separate processes.
But agree that this is by no means ideal and awkward. I don’t think there was any “bad faith” to it though
I agree. Thanks for your opinion.
On an unrelated note, I am currently studying for the New York Bar. I wanted to ask you whether it is worth mentioning it in my applications. I have heard mixed opinions about doing the NY Bar. To some it seems like a good idea to add something different on your CV, to others it seems quite useless considering most firms will still need you to go through the same process as any other trainee, and thus it might not be worth it financially.
I decided to do it as I do believe it might help me in the future. In any case, is there a way in which I could put this experience in a good light? The partner at the firm I did my VS at told me that some interviewers might look at that and think that it’s a sign that I am not ‘all in’ on a career in the City. However, given that the experience is anyways meant for the London market (the chances of getting an NY legal job are very slim), I think there are ways to see it as a good experience.