Ask TCLA's New Community Managers Anything!

[George Maxwell]

It's still at the discussion stage. Initially when mentioned last week, it was just something to think about, so I agreed to but also mentioned the excuse of not being sure about which route to take But today it reached the 'let's have a formal discussion with the development team about what we can do for you.' (@Jessica Booker) They would like for things to be solidified by end of January. I worry that me asking those questions (while not intending to accept the offer) may be perceived strangely? Or perhaps not and I am thinking far too much into the perception of it. In all honesty even my present worry relates to how I say 'no' and continue working here.

Thank you @Jaysen I believe it would be standalone funding, with the work I am currently doing/will be doing in the next year used as QWE for the SQE but not sure how it would apply against the LPC.

You wouldn't do an SQE prep and then the LPC. There is no logic in that. You'd either do the LPC or a prep course - not both.

There wouldn't be an issue with being inquisitive and then saying no though. There could be more issues with turning them down as early as January in my opinion, hence why I was trying to suggest buying yourself some time. It seems a bit strange they want you to commit to this in January when nothing would start until September.

In my eyes, if that's what they want you to do, there is no rush on this, and I would suggest you just say to them that you would prefer to revisit this in 3-6 months time when you have had a chance to consider different factors. This is much more positive than saying no outright to them but also stops your fears of seeming like you are over-committing to them.

Hi @S21,

It's great to hear that you feel comfortable enough now to post on the forum! I am now looking forward to seeing your contributions on the forum elsewhere. 🚀

Based on the information that you have given us and to add to what has been said already, particularly from @Jessica Booker, I would ask questions to clarify your worries. For example, I think it is absolutely fair enough to ask if you would be contractually obligated to continue working in X department if you accepted their offer. I think it is also fair to ask what the scope is for movement afterwards within the company (as they will know that circumstances change and with that, your feeling about which area you want to work in may also change).

Asking for clarification of an offer is not rude or inadvisable, it is the right thing to do in this situation. It is also in their interest that you know what the commitment you are making is. Otherwise they risk you accepting and reneging on it X months/years later. It would be very strange if, after you asked for clarification on the offer, they withdrew it. You have the right to know what you are signing up for!

So in short, I think the team has given you some great advice here. But, based on what you have said, if it were me, I would be honest with the company and ask these questions/air these concerns with them directly. This is a mature, rational response to what is, as Jessica describes, a huge commitment if accepted.

Hope that helps 😇

 

[James Carrabino]

Hi @S21,

It's great to hear that you feel comfortable enough now to post on the forum! I am now looking forward to seeing your contributions on the forum elsewhere. 🚀

Based on the information that you have given us and to add to what has been said already, particularly from @Jessica Booker, I would ask questions to clarify your worries. For example, I think it is absolutely fair enough to ask if you would be contractually obligated to continue working in X department if you accepted their offer. I think it is also fair to ask what the scope is for movement afterwards within the company (as they will know that circumstances change and with that, your feeling about which area you want to work in may also change).

Asking for clarification of an offer is not rude or inadvisable, it is the right thing to do in this situation. It is also in their interest that you know what the commitment you are making is. Otherwise they risk you accepting and reneging on it X months/years later. It would be very strange if, after you asked for clarification on the offer, they withdrew it. You have the right to know what you are signing up for!

So in short, I think the team has given you some great advice here. But, based on what you have said, if it were me, I would be honest with the company and ask these questions/air these concerns with them directly. This is a mature, rational response to what is, as Jessica describes, a huge commitment if accepted.

Hope that helps 😇

@George Maxwell's advice is excellent! @S21 If you have an honest conversation with them, then they are more likely to try to cater to your own goals if they like you

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hello, guys. Hope you are doing well. Could you please tell me, for questions like "What other firms have you applied to?", are they only looking for the names or also the commonalities between these firms?

Secondly, what is the general rule regarding interview questions? I'm just so confused because there is no set time limit for any answer so should we add the extra details (basically anything around our original answer that makes our claims stronger) or stick to whatever is being asked directly (because maybe being concise is better than being descriptive)?

It would be great if you could please help me out with this.

Thanks.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hello, guys. Hope you are doing well. Could you please tell me, for questions like "What other firms have you applied to?", are they only looking for the names or also the commonalities between these firms?

Secondly, what is the general rule regarding interview questions? I'm just so confused because there is no set time limit for any answer so should we add the extra details (basically anything around our original answer that makes our claims stronger) or stick to whatever is being asked directly (because maybe being concise is better than being descriptive)?

It would be great if you could please help me out with this.

Thanks.

Is your first question in relation to applications or interviews?

I hate to say it, but there are no general rules. You have to listen to the specifics of the question. For instance, "What other firms you have applied to" could have a very different answer to "what has been your application strategy". As a unique applicant, you have to try to work out what you need to explain and what you don't based on your application form CV.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Is your first question in relation to applications or interviews?

I hate to say it, but there are no general rules. You have to listen to the specifics of the question. For instance, "What other firms you have applied to" could have a very different answer to "what has been your application strategy". As a unique applicant, you have to try to work out what you need to explain and what you don't based on your application form CV.

Thank you. This did clarify a lot of things, to be honest. And the first question was regarding interviews.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thank you. This did clarify a lot of things, to be honest. And the first question was regarding interviews.

Remember an interview is a two-way conversation. You can always say "would you like me to explain why I chose those firms" if you are ever unsure.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Remember an interview is a two-way conversation. You can always say "would you like me to explain why I chose those firms" if you are ever unsure.

Thank you. Just one follow-up, if we seek clarification too many times but they are genuine clarifications, is that okay? I mean, even the question "Why law" makes me wonder if I should also talk about commercial law specifically or just leave it at "why law". There are so many such questions that can be interpreted like this, so am I allowed to seek clarification as many times as I want?

Thanks .

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thank you. Just one follow-up, if we seek clarification too many times but they are genuine clarifications, is that okay? I mean, even the question "Why law" makes me wonder if I should also talk about commercial law specifically or just leave it at "why law". There are so many such questions that can be interpreted like this, so am I allowed to seek clarification as many times as I want?

Thanks .

Try not to over-prepare your thoughts on this.

You have to really go with the flow in the interview and listen to the specific questions asked. Firms don't just ask "why law", they will ask a fuller question that will have more context to it. You have to listen to that context carefully and adapt your answer to the specifics asked.

Not every question is going to need clarification. In addition, your interviewer can also ask follow up questions if they want more detail or context.

I honestly feel like you are at risk of over-analysing this where you are trying to prepare for every eventuality. It is impossible to do this. Thinking on your feet and analysing situations as they happen are vital skills for a lawyer and therefore I'd encourage you to think more like that than over prepare.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Try not to over-prepare your thoughts on this.

You have to really go with the flow in the interview and listen to the specific questions asked. Firms don't just ask "why law", they will ask a fuller question that will have more context to it. You have to listen to that context carefully and adapt your answer to the specifics asked.

Not every question is going to need clarification. In addition, your interviewer can also ask follow up questions if they want more detail or context.

I honestly feel like you are at risk of over-analysing this where you are trying to prepare for every eventuality. It is impossible to do this. Thinking on your feet and analysing situations as they happen are vital skills for a lawyer and therefore I'd encourage you to think more like that than over prepare.

Thank you so much, will definitely keep this in mind.

 

[James Carrabino]

Hello, guys. Hope you are doing well. Could you please tell me, for questions like "What other firms have you applied to?", are they only looking for the names or also the commonalities between these firms?

Secondly, what is the general rule regarding interview questions? I'm just so confused because there is no set time limit for any answer so should we add the extra details (basically anything around our original answer that makes our claims stronger) or stick to whatever is being asked directly (because maybe being concise is better than being descriptive)?

It would be great if you could please help me out with this.

Thanks.

They are looking for names and will often follow up with a question about what characterises the firms you are applying to in general and why you would choose their firm over the other choices. If you have applied widely then do not list 10+ firms; choose 3 or 4 firms which you think are similar to the one you are interviewing at. You can also choose firms you have progressed with in case they ask how you're doing with the firms you mentioned.

I think for your second question that you should be descriptive, but only to the extent that it is relevant and cogent. Do not miss out good details for the sake of being concise, but do avoid waffling.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

They are looking for names and will often follow up with a question about what characterises the firms you are applying to in general and why you would choose their firm over the other choices. If you have applied widely then do not list 10+ firms; choose 3 or 4 firms which you think are similar to the one you are interviewing at. You can also choose firms you have progressed with in case they ask how you're doing with the firms you mentioned.

I think for your second question that you should be descriptive, but only to the extent that it is relevant and cogent. Do not miss out good details for the sake of being concise, but do avoid waffling.

Thank you for this answer, James.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hello guys, hope you are doing well. I had two silly questions so could you please help me out with these?

1: "Why should we hire you", is the same as "Why you", right?

2: During case studies, if a partner/associate questions our stance on something and suggests any other answer, should we stay firm on what we originally mentioned or should we take into account what he/she is saying and build upon it? I've heard really conflicting answers to this question and I understand that this might not have a certain answer but still, I am clueless about this.

Thanks.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hello guys, hope you are doing well. I had two silly questions so could you please help me out with these?

1: "Why should we hire you", is the same as "Why you", right?

2: During case studies, if a partner/associate questions our stance on something and suggests any other answer, should we stay firm on what we originally mentioned or should we take into account what he/she is saying and build upon it? I've heard really conflicting answers to this question and I understand that this might not have a certain answer but still, I am clueless about this.

Thanks.

1) Essentially, yes they are the same question. The former is often framed in a “compared to other candidates” manner though, which can be about focusing on your uniqueness rather than just your strengths though.

2) It really depends on the strength of your original point. If you still think you are right, stick to your guns. If upon hearing the additional information/different perspective, your views change, then adapt your thinking to reflect that. It’s not really about conceding or sticking to your guns, it’s about analysing the information presented to you and considering your view point again.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

1) Essentially, yes they are the same question. The former is often framed in a “compared to other candidates” manner though, which can be about focusing on your uniqueness rather than just your strengths though.

2) It really depends on the strength of your original point. If you still think you are right, stick to your guns. If upon hearing the additional information/different perspective, your views change, then adapt your thinking to reflect that. It’s not really about conceding or sticking to your guns, it’s about analysing the information presented to you and considering your view point again.

Thank you so much.

 

[AvniD]

Hello guys, hope you are doing well. I had two silly questions so could you please help me out with these?

1: "Why should we hire you", is the same as "Why you", right?

2: During case studies, if a partner/associate questions our stance on something and suggests any other answer, should we stay firm on what we originally mentioned or should we take into account what he/she is saying and build upon it? I've heard really conflicting answers to this question and I understand that this might not have a certain answer but still, I am clueless about this.

Thanks.

I'd answer 1) with the intention of linking my personal characteristics/skills/abilities back to the firm's ethos and vision and 2) always take whatever the partner/associate has said into account but if you feel like you can justify your stance despite their opinion, then go with your gut. Case studies test your ability to absorb new information and adapt accordingly, but that doesn't mean you necessarily need to 'change' your stance when it's been challenged.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hello, guys. Hope you all are doing well. Could you please help me out with how I should approach these two interview questions?

Q1:- Why is working in a team so important for deals?

Q2- What are the advantages of an international firm?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hello, guys. Hope you all are doing well. Could you please help me out with how I should approach these two interview questions?

Q1:- Why is working in a team so important for deals?

Q2- What are the advantages of an international firm?

Thanks in advance.

What are your initial thoughts on these two questions?

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

What are your initial thoughts on these two questions?

For Q1, the only thing that I can think of is an M&A deal where the corporate department coordinates the transaction and stays in touch with every other practice area and ultimately submits the DD report to the client by compiling the inputs of different teams. Working in a team, therefore, becomes important because the deal would not conclude otherwise.

For Q2, I would say (1) multi-jurisdictional work and (2) secondment opportunities, but these are the only two things that come to my mind. These things help you learn about how the work culture and how business practices differ in the workplace across the world and this will aid my self-development.

 

[Putt5353]

What are your initial thoughts on these two questions?

Hello, guys. Hope you all are doing well. Could you please help me out with how I should approach these two interview questions?

Q1:- Why is working in a team so important for deals?

Q2- What are the advantages of an international firm?

Thanks in advance.

Hi @futuretraineesolicitor - I’m not sure I can help you with these Qs specifically, but just as some general interview advice, I would say from my own experience that giving an answer with your own thoughts/interpretation will always serve you better than worrying too much about what you think the interviewer wants to hear. For example, even if your take on something is slightly different than the interviewer expects, this can open the conversation up for more follow up questions and rapport building.
A slightly more unique answer will also help you to stand out against the thousands of other applicants, so I would say with generic questions like these, try to draw on your experiences/opinions and come up with an answer that you could justify or elaborate on if needed.

I hope some of that helps - and good luck with the interview!

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hi @futuretraineesolicitor - I’m not sure I can help you with these Qs specifically, but just as some general interview advice, I would say from my own experience that giving an answer with your own thoughts/interpretation will always serve you better than worrying too much about what you think the interviewer wants to hear. For example, even if your take on something is slightly different than the interviewer expects, this can open the conversation up for more follow up questions and rapport building.
A slightly more unique answer will also help you to stand out against the thousands of other applicants, so I would say with generic questions like these, try to draw on your experiences/opinions and come up with an answer that you could justify or elaborate on if needed.

I hope some of that helps - and good luck with the interview!

Thanks for your response @Putt5353 . The problem that I'm facing is that I'm just clueless about how I should approach these questions but once I figure out all the possible answers to this, I will definitely keep your point in mind and choose a unique way to approach it.