Ask TCLA's New Community Managers Anything!

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hi @futuretraineesolicitor - for the starred thread, you’ll need to create a separate thread. Unfortunately we cannot star individual posts.

What I would stress is that a lot of the themes of small vs large trainee intake don’t really work in reality and so you have to tread carefully where using them as reasons for applying. It is often much more about the ratio of trainees to qualified lawyers that is really the dynamic that people need to think about. For instance, people talk about getting more responsibilities/opportunities in a small trainee intake. But in a trainee intake of 10 in a firm with 50 lawyers vs a trainee intake of 100 in a firm of 1000 lawyers, the larger firm could give going to give you more responsibility/opportunities as the ratio of trainees is actually smaller (1:5 vs 1:10).

Ah, never really looked at it from that angle. Thanks for the explanation, Jessica.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hi @futuretraineesolicitor - for the starred thread, you’ll need to create a separate thread. Unfortunately we cannot star individual posts.

What I would stress is that a lot of the themes of small vs large trainee intake don’t really work in reality and so you have to tread carefully where using them as reasons for applying. It is often much more about the ratio of trainees to qualified lawyers that is really the dynamic that people need to think about. For instance, people talk about getting more responsibilities/opportunities in a small trainee intake. But in a trainee intake of 10 in a firm with 50 lawyers vs a trainee intake of 100 in a firm of 1000 lawyers, the larger firm could give going to give you more responsibility/opportunities as the ratio of trainees is actually smaller (1:5 vs 1:10).

Just a follow-up question, please? I understand your point relates to how much responsibility you will get as a trainee but if we consider the social angle, then would you say that firms with mid-sized intakes win over firms with large and small trainee intakes? Because, in a firm with a large intake, you will feel like a part in a big-machinery and you won't be able to know people more deeply whereas in firms with small intakes, there aren't going to be as many people to network so firms with mid-sized trainee intakes win in the social aspect because there are going to be just enough trainees that will help you form your network plus not so many where you will feel lost.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Just a follow-up question, please? I understand your point relates to how much responsibility you will get as a trainee but if we consider the social angle, then would you say that firms with mid-sized intakes win over firms with large and small trainee intakes? Because, in a firm with a large intake, you will feel like a part in a big-machinery and you won't be able to know people more deeply whereas in firms with small intakes, there aren't going to be as many people to network so firms with mid-sized trainee intakes win in the social aspect because there are going to be just enough trainees that will help you form your network plus not so many where you will feel lost.

I don’t think it is that simple. Lots of factors make up the social aspect of the firm/trainee intake and from my experience, the size of the intake has little impact on that. With small intakes, people can just be more social with non-trainees. With large intakes you just have more choice of who you socialise with.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

I don’t think it is that simple. Lots of factors make up the social aspect of the firm/trainee intake and from my experience, the size of the intake has little impact on that. With small intakes, people can just be more social with non-trainees. With large intakes you just have more choice of who you socialise with.

Understood, Jessica. But is there any benefit in joining firms with neither large nor small trainee intakes then? I used to feel that the firms with mid-sized trainee intakes would not have the disadvantages that the large and the small ones face but after our conversation today, it looks like there are none.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Understood, Jessica. But is there any benefit in joining firms with neither large nor small trainee intakes then? I used to feel that the firms with mid-sized trainee intakes would not have the disadvantages that the large and the small ones face but after our conversation today, it looks like there are none.

I just feel it isn't as binary as size equating to a disadvantage or advantage (or lack of either) - some may disagree with me on this though.

A mid-sized trainee intake could experience the downsides/upsides of a large intake/small intake, especially regarding levels of responsibilities/opportunities/social aspects where I feel these things are determined by many other factors.

 

[James Carrabino]

Hello, @George Maxwell @James Carrabino @AvniD hope you all are well. Could you please tell me if you know of any article/resource that talks about the advantages and disadvantages of large, small and mid-sized trainee intakes? I could not find anything on the forum. Also, would be great if you could turn this into a starred thread given how this is an important topic and not much is written about this.

Thanks.

Hi @futuretraineesolicitor good question! If you would still like it as a starred thread then feel free to post your question as a thread early next week and I can star it in order to gain wider input

My sense is that everything you hear about the benefits of a small or large trainee intake will be 1. Marketing spin or 2. Anecdotal experiences. Also, from my time working as a TCLA application reviewer, I can tell you that comments about a firm's trainee intake size are usually not very interesting in part because every single candidate makes them... also, I have seen comments about 'the firm's small intake' when the firm in question has one of the largest trainee intakes in the City, so try to avoid making a mistake like that🤣

Ok, so about the actual difference between firms with small and large trainee intakes - sure, you will hear that a smaller trainee intake gives you 'more responsibility' and a larger one is 'more collegiate' and may have 'better training' but what does any of that mean?

@Jessica Booker's point about ratio of trainees to other lawyers is an excellent point. It is possible to conclude that a smaller trainee intake leaves you more exposed as you have fewer peers to ask questions of and your work can be more closely overseen by grad rec and senior lawyers, but at the same time a firm with a larger intake may have longer-established mechanisms in place for reviewing trainees' work.

Firms with larger intakes sometimes have better training structures in place if they have been in the City longer, although some firms with small intakes are renowned for excellent training as they invest a lot in training their small crop of trainees.

I would say that statistically, you are more likely to make friends in a larger intake, simply by virtue of the fact that there will be more people for you to choose from! There could also be less of a sense of direct competition with trainees when there are a vast number as opposed to only a handful. Nevertheless, a smaller intake might bond very well and enjoy a more intimate firm environment. It really is hard to say.

At the end of the day, most firms do not manufacture the size of their trainee intake for the benefit of trainee culture. Their trainee intake is determined by business need (which is why multiple firms with 'large' intakes had 'small' intakes a decade ago but grew rapidly in the meantime) and they subsequently espouse the value of their intake size in recruitment brochures as if they chose it to be that size for some other reason than business need 🤣

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hi @futuretraineesolicitor good question! If you would still like it as a starred thread then feel free to post your question as a thread early next week and I can star it in order to gain wider input

My sense is that everything you hear about the benefits of a small or large trainee intake will be 1. Marketing spin or 2. Anecdotal experiences. Also, from my time working as a TCLA application reviewer, I can tell you that comments about a firm's trainee intake size are usually not very interesting in part because every single candidate makes them... also, I have seen comments about 'the firm's small intake' when the firm in question has one of the largest trainee intakes in the City, so try to avoid making a mistake like that🤣

Ok, so about the actual difference between firms with small and large trainee intakes - sure, you will hear that a smaller trainee intake gives you 'more responsibility' and a larger one is 'more collegiate' and may have 'better training' but what does any of that mean?

@Jessica Booker's point about ratio of trainees to other lawyers is an excellent point. It is possible to conclude that a smaller trainee intake leaves you more exposed as you have fewer peers to ask questions of and your work can be more closely overseen by grad rec and senior lawyers, but at the same time a firm with a larger intake may have longer-established mechanisms in place for reviewing trainees' work.

Firms with larger intakes sometimes have better training structures in place if they have been in the City longer, although some firms with small intakes are renowned for excellent training as they invest a lot in training their small crop of trainees.

I would say that statistically, you are more likely to make friends in a larger intake, simply by virtue of the fact that there will be more people for you to choose from! There could also be less of a sense of direct competition with trainees when there are a vast number as opposed to only a handful. Nevertheless, a smaller intake might bond very well and enjoy a more intimate firm environment. It really is hard to say.

At the end of the day, most firms do not manufacture the size of their trainee intake for the benefit of trainee culture. Their trainee intake is determined by business need (which is why multiple firms with 'large' intakes had 'small' intakes a decade ago but grew rapidly in the meantime) and they subsequently espouse the value of their intake size in recruitment brochures as if they chose it to be that size for some other reason than business need 🤣

Thank you so much for this response, James. This was really helpful.

 

[James Carrabino]

Thank you so much for this response, James. This was really helpful.

You're always welcome!

 

[nisadee]

Hi @Dheepa

I have a few questions regarding a vac scheme I'll be starting very soon! I'd really appreciate your advice on my concerns.

1) In my vac scheme interview, they asked me what firms I applied to and I only mentioned their competitors. However, I actually ended up securing vac schemes at another two firms which are hugely different from theirs- like, completely different- think Latham and Farrer & Co different. Ultimately, their firm is my dream firm but I applied to lots of firms as I know how competitive the process is and how a lot of it comes down to numbers and luck. I feel in my final TC interview they'll ask about any other offers. Should I disclose these firms? I'm worried I'll be scrutinised for my choices and how I can convincingly rationalise this to them. On the other hand, if I kept it to myself, would this be the better approach? I've also heard mentioning you have multiple offers makes you look like a stronger candidate?

2) Do you have any tips on how to remain calm and perform well on group negotiations and presentations? Group assessed tasks always make me the most nervous.

3) And finally, any last minute tips on how to deal with imposter syndrome? I still can't believe I was selected for this vac scheme.

Thank you so much!

Hi everyone,

Just wanted some advice on my thoughts on justifying the different offers. I was thinking of going along the lines of I am interested in corporate law and want to really experience the whole spectrum of corporate work available in the market because their corporate department is obviously stellar so I want to experience corporate law in a smaller firm, even if it isn't their specialism. These firms will have very different clients, deals and approaches. I would learn a lot more about the market by having this experience compared to doing multiple schemes at similar firms. I also want to mention how commitment is a big thing to me, so I have personally interacted with all these firms prior to applying and it was difficult to do this virtually.

Do you think this is good enough justification or do I still sound unsure?

@James Carrabino @AvniD @George Maxwell @Jessica Booker

 

[Zubin]

Hi all,

I could really use your advice! I received a TC offer from a City international firm ('firm A'). However, I made a direct TC application to another firm (preferred firm - 'Firm B'). Firm B just emailed me asking if I received a TC offer from the other vac schemes I did, and to provide as much information as possible.

I would love a TC from firm B; however, how do I mention it politely in the email that I would pick Firm B over the other firm I received an offer from? Or do I just mention that 'yes, I received a TC following my VS at firm B'?

@George Maxwell @AvniD @Dheepa @Jaysen

Thank you!

Hi there! I know this is an older post, but did you disclose the names of the other firms? Or did you just say “other firms”?

 

[Zubin]

Personally, I don't think you need to mention that you'd rather accept firm B's offer. I really do think it's just a case of the firm needing as much information as possible. For context, I made a direct TC application to one firm and did disclose that I had secured TC offers elsewhere and still progressed. If your application is strong I think you will progress regardless and the fact that you have secured TC offers will only help convey your strength as an applicant.

Hi Dheepa, did you mention the names of the other firms your offers were at, or did you keep that information private?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi Dheepa, did you mention the names of the other firms your offers were at, or did you keep that information private?

You don’t need to mention them, although the firm may ask you anyway

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hello @James Carrabino @George Maxwell @AvniD, hope you all are doing well. I had a question regarding a TCLA news story that I read recently. The story talked about how M&A activity was slowing and the "How is this relevant to law firms" section talked about how law firms who made a big share of the revenue from M&A could not rely on the practice area anymore because this could potentially mean less revenue for the firm.

I think the news story was great but what else could the firm do? I mean I do get that they should not rely on M&A but this doesn't look like an actionable solution to the M&A activity dip. I was wondering what else it is that law firms who are big into M&A could do to prevent revenue from dipping.

Thanks.

 

[James Carrabino]

Hi everyone,

Just wanted some advice on my thoughts on justifying the different offers. I was thinking of going along the lines of I am interested in corporate law and want to really experience the whole spectrum of corporate work available in the market because their corporate department is obviously stellar so I want to experience corporate law in a smaller firm, even if it isn't their specialism. These firms will have very different clients, deals and approaches. I would learn a lot more about the market by having this experience compared to doing multiple schemes at similar firms. I also want to mention how commitment is a big thing to me, so I have personally interacted with all these firms prior to applying and it was difficult to do this virtually.

Do you think this is good enough justification or do I still sound unsure?

@James Carrabino @AvniD @George Maxwell @Jessica Booker

Hi @nisadee I quite like the sound of this approach!

I would be cautious about the way you phrase it so that it does not sound like you are trying too hard to find a way of linking your interest in the firms - feel free to be quite open about their differences. But yes, I think that saying you want to explore the full range of the market in corporate law is not a bad approach. Then explain why you are leaning towards the segment of the market that the firm you are interviewing at occupies and how you think the skills you learn on the other firms' vac schemes will give you insight and skills that you can bring with you to this firm.

Commitment is a great thing to discuss, but perhaps you should explain why you personally interacted with these firms beforehand. Otherwise, it could sound a bit arbitrary that you interacted with some firms and thus feel a sense of commitment to them going forwards. If you have a reason for why you initially interacted with them, it would then make sense to explain that you really liked the vibe you got from each firm for completely different reasons and that despite their differences, you feel that you would enjoy working at any of them.

Do make sure though to hammer home exactly why your top choice is definitely the firm you are currently working at

 

[AvniD]

Hello @James Carrabino @George Maxwell @AvniD, hope you all are doing well. I had a question regarding a TCLA news story that I read recently. The story talked about how M&A activity was slowing and the "How is this relevant to law firms" section talked about how law firms who made a big share of the revenue from M&A could not rely on the practice area anymore because this could potentially mean less revenue for the firm.

I think the news story was great but what else could the firm do? I mean I do get that they should not rely on M&A but this doesn't look like an actionable solution to the M&A activity dip. I was wondering what else it is that law firms who are big into M&A could do to prevent revenue from dipping.

Thanks.

Law firms typically weather changes in economic cycles well because when M&A activity slows down, while work for deal teams will reduce (it doesn't completely cease, usually), work for restructuring, litigations etc. teams will pick up. So while the lawyers at the firm will generally keep doing what they do, the firm's leaders will need to adapt the firm strategy to ensuring that the teams that can bring in the most revenue are slotted ahead of everyone else.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Law firms typically weather changes in economic cycles well because when M&A activity slows down, while work for deal teams will reduce (it doesn't completely cease, usually), work for restructuring, litigations etc. teams will pick up. So while the lawyers at the firm will generally keep doing what they do, the firm's leaders will need to adapt the firm strategy to ensuring that the teams that can bring in the most revenue are slotted ahead of everyone else.

Thank you for the response, Avni. I was wondering if you could please explain how the firm ensures that the teams that bring in the most revenue have an adequate number of people? I mean how can a lawyer who does M&A be transferred to other departments if the demand is picking up in the other departments? He/she only knows M&A that's why he works in that particular department, right?

 

[James Carrabino]

Hello @James Carrabino @George Maxwell @AvniD, hope you all are doing well. I had a question regarding a TCLA news story that I read recently. The story talked about how M&A activity was slowing and the "How is this relevant to law firms" section talked about how law firms who made a big share of the revenue from M&A could not rely on the practice area anymore because this could potentially mean less revenue for the firm.

I think the news story was great but what else could the firm do? I mean I do get that they should not rely on M&A but this doesn't look like an actionable solution to the M&A activity dip. I was wondering what else it is that law firms who are big into M&A could do to prevent revenue from dipping.

Thanks.

Thank you for the response, Avni. I was wondering if you could please explain how the firm ensures that the teams that bring in the most revenue have an adequate number of people? I mean how can a lawyer who does M&A be transferred to other departments if the demand is picking up in the other departments? He/she only knows M&A that's why he works in that particular department, right?

I think that the firm can protect itself by having a broad range of departments and not have them all centred around the M&A work. For example, having litigious and advisory practices which do their own work unrelated to the deals that the firm is currently working on is a good way of ensuring diversification of income so that the firm does not suffer too much during low M&A periods.

@AvniD makes a great point in that you often see a rise in restructuring and litigation work during downturns in M&A, which is somewhat intuitive. I am not entirely sure the extent to which lawyers get transferred to other departments, although I am sure there is some flexibility for lawyers who work in similar areas of law to do so but on the whole I think that primarily this would manifest itself in the way that trainees and paralegals are allocated.

There will always be some costs associated with an upturn or downturn in the market but law firms plan for this in advance by being very strategic with the number of lawyers they hire in each practice area.

 

[AvniD]

@James Carrabino has put this across really well!

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Thank you so much @James Carrabino @AvniD

 

[nisadee]

Hi @nisadee I quite like the sound of this approach!

I would be cautious about the way you phrase it so that it does not sound like you are trying too hard to find a way of linking your interest in the firms - feel free to be quite open about their differences. But yes, I think that saying you want to explore the full range of the market in corporate law is not a bad approach. Then explain why you are leaning towards the segment of the market that the firm you are interviewing at occupies and how you think the skills you learn on the other firms' vac schemes will give you insight and skills that you can bring with you to this firm.

Commitment is a great thing to discuss, but perhaps you should explain why you personally interacted with these firms beforehand. Otherwise, it could sound a bit arbitrary that you interacted with some firms and thus feel a sense of commitment to them going forwards. If you have a reason for why you initially interacted with them, it would then make sense to explain that you really liked the vibe you got from each firm for completely different reasons and that despite their differences, you feel that you would enjoy working at any of them.

Do make sure though to hammer home exactly why your top choice is definitely the firm you are currently working at

Hi James! Thank you so much for your response - this gave me the boost of confidence I needed!