In this week's (slightly delayed - sorry!) Article, we take a look at law firm interviews.
Introduction
Almost every law firm’s application process involves some form of interview. This style of interview is designed to find out about your motivations, experiences, skills and characteristics by asking different types of questions across various key areas. Some firms (for example,
Travers Smith) use an interview alone to screen candidates (for vacation scheme applications; multiple interviews are required for training contract applications); others (for example,
Herbert Smith Freehills) have multiple different interviews in addition to the competency interview during the assessment process for both vacation scheme and training contract applications.
Furthermore, different firms will value different skills and competencies to a greater or lesser degree: for example, firm A might place a lot of emphasis on teamwork and collaboration, while firm B may focus more on leadership and resilience. Generally, understanding the assessment process as a whole, as well as the different core values of each firm you are asked to interview with, will normally give an indication of the areas they may focus on in the competency interview.
This article, as such, will first of all go over some key ‘question groups’, breaking down different exemplar questions within each group as well as providing a number of different approaches a candidate might be able to take to answer the questions. We will conclude, once again, with some top tips from the other members of the TCLA forum team.
Please note: the examples and approaches are based on my experiences and the answers I’ve personally given in interviews. The examples are by no means an exhaustive list of potential interview questions, nor are the approaches the only way of tackling the given question. What worked for me may not work for you, and I would absolutely encourage using this article as a guide to lead you into further research for your interviews. Our ‘Interview Experiences: 2019-2020 Cycle’ forum (
https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/forum/forums/interview-experiences-2019-2020-cycle.83/) is also a great place to start.
Question Group 1: “the 3 whys”
“The 3 whys” is the name I give to the three questions that are not only almost guaranteed to come up in the interview, but are among the most important questions to provide thorough and robust answers to:
why law, why this firm, why you? These questions are so important because they seek to expose your underlying motivations for focussing on a career in commercial law and for working at that firm in particular, as well as headlining the key skills and competencies you believe you display which are relevant to the career pathway. Often, these questions will come up close to the beginning of the interview and are a great opportunity to open with a strong set of responses and get the interview off on a strong suit. Before we can consider how best to approach answering these questions, it’s first important to understand what they are actually asking:
- Why law?
- The first key point to address here is that this question is fundamentally asking “why commercial law?”. As such, it is important to be able to justify why the nuances of a career in commercial law are more interesting to you than other legal specialisms, so it is also testing your knowledge of what a commercial solicitor does. This answer should be inherently personal to you, detailing your interests and motivations. Some factors to consider might include:
- Note, sometimes, law firms will ask why you chose law more generally. In my personal experience, this is directed more towards law students, and phrased something like “Why did you choose to study law?”, so the different emphasis is signposted. An equivalent to this question for non-law students might be “If you’ve studied X at undergraduate level, why do you want to go into law?”, which would be suitable to answer using your “why commercial law” response. Just be sure that it justifies your desire to come to law from a different degree background!
- Why this firm?
- As with any job interview, the hiring company want to know your motivations for joining them in particular. At the stage of applying for vacation schemes and training contracts, it is highly likely that you will have made multiple applications and may be undertaking more than one interview. Don’t worry – firms know this, they’re not expecting themselves to be the only firm you’ve applied to. Generally, avoid anything which could be said of many different firms (e.g., client base/leading work/reputation in general). Some factors to think about when constructing your response to this question include:
- Training contract structure (e.g., compulsory seats, number of seats etc)
- Office structure (e.g., do you share an office with senior lawyers to learn by osmosis? Are trainees grouped together to enable them to help each other easier?)
- Key practice areas of the firm
- Recent deals the firm has undertaken which are of particular interest
- Why you?
- This question is where you can really headline all the key factors that you feel set you apart from other candidates applying for the same position. It is important to use this response to show things which are unique to you, which you feel you are able to display better than other candidates. Whether these are skillsets, motivations, or experiences (either legal or wider life experiences), anything which you feel differentiates you is worth considering for this question. Another factor to remember here is that this question is often the first opportunity in the interview to let your personality come to the fore in the response you give. Don’t underestimate how much firms are looking for this – as I’ve mentioned numerous times on the forum and, indeed, in other articles, is that almost every firm in the industry would prefer a rounded candidate with an engaging and personable personality than a corporate robot who focusses only on what they think the firm wants to hear! Elements to consider for this response might include:
- Work experiences from which you have developed key skillsets which are applicable to a career in commercial law
- Key personality traits which are relevant
- Work experiences which have given you a greater understanding of the commercial legal world
- Wider life experiences which have contributed to underlying motivations
Generally speaking, I would have three key points for each question, with a fourth (and possibly fifth) ready to bring up in the event that a follow-up question was asked. For each key point, you want to have a strong, developed example. Generally speaking, I would recommend against using a STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Response)-based response for these questions as your response would become too long. As such, for these questions, I tended to
focus on my involvement and impact on the outcome, with only a very brief outline of the circumstances, and providing a link to why I feel this would be relevant in commercial law. I would also try to show different personal qualities in my answer. For example, part of my response to the “why you” question covering communication skills might include:
“As a member of the TCLA forum team, I volunteered to write a series of articles covering elements of the application process. I believe that writing these articles to communicate technical information in a clear and accessible way also shares parallels with work undertaken as a commercial solicitor in drafting advice to clients.”
Note that, although we want to streamline elements of this answer as above, the responses to these questions will generally speaking be among the most extended responses you will give during the interview.
Question Group 2: “Tell me about a time you…”
Where the 3 whys are looking for a number of key areas to be covered in each response, “tell me about a time” questions are more focussed, targeting one (or sometimes two) key competencies per question. These questions involve answering on a given topic using an example from a previous experience you have had. The examples you use can come from a wide variety of situations; they don’t all have to be legal. Indeed, I personally used examples from a wide range of legal internships, prior non-legal employment, experience running my own businesses, and even wider life experiences (which often helped put a more personable spin on my responses). There are literally hundreds of different questions that could take this structure (see, for example,
https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/175-training-contract-interview-questions-2/). To that end, we won’t be able to break down every possible question that follows this structure. Instead, we will give an example list of common “tell me about a time” questions and break down a number of these as example answers. Common examples of questions like this include:
Tell me about a time you…
- worked in a team
- overcame a challenge
- were resilient
- had to balance multiple commitments
- had to manage someone’s expectations
- had to tell someone senior to you that they were wrong
- had to negotiate
- had to deal with an awkward person/ customer/ situation
- failed/ made a mistake
- went above and beyond to deliver on a series of promises/ commitments
- solved a problem
- had your morals tested
- had to face a fear
Generally speaking, these types of questions can be taken at face value, insofar as they are not trick questions. The most common approach to answering these questions is the STAR format, outlined above. Another, very similar, response structure is CAR: Context, Action, Result. CAR and STAR can be used virtually interchangeably, according to whichever suits the given question the best. The main advantage to this type of response is that it sets out a clear structure which the interviewer can follow without any difficulty, it also means you can more easily keep track of your response to avoid issues like rambling. A typical STAR/CAR response might look something like these (these are all examples that I have personally used from my own life and work experiences. You will, of course, need to work your own examples into such questions):
Q: Tell me about a time you had to tell someone senior to you that they were wrong.
A: One time I was in this position was during my tenure as a Staff Writer for [publishing company]
, where I wrote for their biggest title, a worldwide hobby industry magazine [Situation].
As part of my role, I was tasked with researching and writing two articles per month for the magazine. One particular article I wrote had involved some very focussed research on a particularly niche topic – as such, I spent a great deal of time ensuring all the information I included in the article was of complete factual accuracy. The challenge arose when I was challenged by the editor of the magazine, my boss, on the accuracy of some of the information I had included in the article. He asserted that I was incorrect on a number of points which could delay the article going to print [Task].
Due to the depth of my researching and cross-checking the information in the article, I knew that he was under a misapprehension. As such, I located the sources I had used to construct the article and responded to his email, obviously avoiding as much as I could the risk of coming over as patronising or condescending and advised him that I had attached the sources I had used to confirm the information I had included in the article. I also invited him to point me in the direction of any information which was contrary to my point and that I would be more than happy to amend the article as appropriate [Action].
As a result, the editor was able to consult the sources I had used to compile the article and realised quickly that he had indeed been under a misapprehension. He communicated this to me, and the article was subsequently sent to print without any delay to the production schedule. Due to the fact that I had communicated with him in a sensitive and considerate manner throughout, there was no awkwardness or discontent in our working relationship which continued for a long time thereafter [Result].
Note, in this response, that key skills such as research and drafting skills are displayed as well as showing the thought process and approach that I took to solving the problem. Using these questions to subtly include additional skillsets is a great means of providing as much valuable content into each response as possible.
Q: Tell me about a time that you had to had to overcome a challenge.
A: One of the biggest challenges that I’ve had to overcome – arguably one which I’m still overcoming, to a degree – was when I unfortunately broke my back in a freak accident in August 2018. I was unlucky enough to fall over the side of a flight of steps which didn’t have a bannister (stone-cold sober, I must add!) and, when I landed, I was unable to move. It transpired that I had broken my back in three places and was paralysed from the waist down. I had to undergo an emergency, and very risky, spinal operation to regain the usage of my lower body. Another factor which added some complexity to the situation was that the accident happened just over a fortnight before my university term started. Although the surgery was a success, and I was able to move again, the nature and complexity of my injury meant that I had prolonged stay in hospital and that I was still extremely vulnerable for a long time after my discharge. I was also on exceptionally strong pain medication which massively impacted on my cognitive ability. As such, I had to overcome the challenges associated with recovering from my injury – chief among which was learning how to walk again – as well as getting to grips with my university work (at a new university, too: I had transferred there for the start of that term, so I was getting to grips with a new place at the same time) and still needing to maintain an income despite having had to leave my job as a barman due to the nature of my injuries [Context].
As such, I immediately made an effort to analyse all the different elements of my life and cut out a lot of unimportant or peripheral commitments in order to focus on my recovery, studies and finances. I planned each part of my day meticulously, planning things like studying around when I had to do physiotherapy and making sure that I didn’t clash studying with taking painkillers. To solve my financial situation, I analysed my skills relative to tasks I could still undertake with my new physical limitations. After appropriate planning and research, I launched Top Tips Private Tuition, providing academic tuition to school-aged and mature learners. I was able to plan lessons around my other commitments and limitations, take lessons virtually (I was still unable to drive for a few months) and control the number of clients I had at any one time according to my capacity [Action].
As a result of taking this decisive action and streamlining my lifestyle to focus on the most important factors, I was able to make a good recovery from my injuries as well as pass all my university subjects that year with 2.1s and 1sts across the board. My business was also a success and surpassed all the one and two-year growth targets I had planned, indeed, I continue to tutor and now have a waiting list for prospective tutees [Result].
Note, with this answer, that the example given is one which is by no means legal in nature, but it shows a number of directly applicable skills as well as a strong degree of resilience. As well as overcoming an obvious challenge, this answer shows the ability to
analyse, prioritise, manage time and
use initiative to solve problems. These are all key skills which are highly relevant to a career in commercial law, so showing that I possess these skills adds another dimension to my response even when they are not factors which are being directly asked about in this question. Be wary of including other features in your answer at the expense of actually answering the question that you’ve been asked. Ensuring you meet the requirements of the explicit question should always be the first priority; anything over and above that should only be included if it doesn’t divert attention away from this.
Q: Tell me about a time you worked in a team.
A: Teamwork is a skill I’ve used in a variety of settings and circumstances over the years; one of the foremost examples was when I was part of a Bar Mock Trial team. I actually had a really interesting position within this team because, in the two years I was a part of it, I went from a senior team-member to the team captain. This meant I had to balance teamwork skills, where I had my own character and role within the team as Senior Counsel, while also maintaining a leadership role in a manner which balanced the interests of the team as a whole while being sensitive to the needs and feelings of each team-member [Situation].
As mentioned, I took on the position of Senior Counsel within one of the trial scenarios, as well as the team captain role. In my capacity as Senior Counsel, I was tasked with analysing the legal issues that arose in the scenario given to construct legal arguments and cross-examination plans for witnesses. I also had to work with other team members, for example, my Junior Counsel and witnesses on my side of the case, to ensure our arguments and approach were in sync and presented a cogent argument overall. In my capacity as team captain, I was tasked with many of the organisational and structural elements of the team’s preparations. This included allocating different roles to different team members, ensuring that each team member was aware of what their role involved, arranging meetings and practice sessions for the team and also mentoring the more junior members of the team who had less experience [Task].
To satisfy the elements of my role as Senior Counsel, I kept in regular communication with other key members of my team (for example, my Junior Counsel) and ensured that there was open dialogue to discuss key issues such as planning arguments, lines of questioning and points of law. I ensured that at all times I asked open questions, encouraged my team-mates to communicate openly and worked in a collaborative manner to ensure my team-mates were secure in their roles. As team captain, to ensure that team-members were in the most appropriate positions within the team, I conducted a series of auditions before allocating roles according to performance. I arranged for bi-weekly training sessions to take place and ensured all team-members were furnished with the appropriate information and documentation for their role. I assumed a laissez-faire style of leadership in terms of the daily running of the team, delegating different tasks to senior team-members and encouraging team-members to solve problems themselves, with appropriate support from myself where necessary [Action].
As a result of my actions, both as Senior Counsel and team captain, my team progressed to the National Finals of the competition, a position they had never before achieved. Team-members provided extremely positive anonymous feedback after the competition acknowledging the balance of leadership with individual freedom and overall satisfaction with the process [Result].
Note, with this response, I took the opportunity to add another dimension of displaying leadership as well as teamwork skills. This additional skillset is important in commercial law, and this response is another example of taking the opportunity to display multiple applicable skillsets in a single response while still making sure the original question is being answered in a full and developed manner. One important point for teamwork questions, or examples in which you were a part of a team, specifically, is to focus on
your contributions to the team and
your impact on the end result. While there may be no ‘I’ in ‘team’, it remains nonetheless extremely important to display your specific impact on the situation at the time of discussing it in an interview.
If, for whatever reason, your responses to these questions need to be shorter than a full SCAR/STAR response would require, you can streamline your responses much in the same way as in your responses to the 3 whys, discussed above.
Question Group 3: morally challenging questions
Now we’ve finished with competency questions, it’s time to look at morally challenging questions. These questions, among some of the most difficult to answer by their very nature, are designed to test your morals and professional integrity, both essential to make a career in any legal specialism. They might be based around situations where…:
- A client has asked you to lie to the other party for them in the course of a negotiation
- A senior colleague has asked you to cover up a mistake they’ve made by forging or hiding documents
- A client has instructed you to commence a mass redundancy at a company where multiple members of your family are employed
They might also be framed in a non-situational manner, instead asking for your opinion on sensitive topics:
- Should firms have positive discrimination to ensure a diverse workforce?
- Is a commercial solicitor in a situation such as one described above more or less moral than a criminal defence lawyer defending someone accused of alleged child sex offences? (this is a question I have personally been asked)
- Is it ever okay to keep secrets?
With situational questions, it is key to remember that solicitors, including trainees, are regulated by a binding code of practice, the rules and principles of which must be upheld in order to maintain one’s position. To that end, you would be prohibited from engaging in any course of conduct which would breach this code. On the other hand, however, one of the overarching principles of practising as a solicitor is representing your client’s interests. Thus, on the proviso that no other codes of practice were broken by engaging in particular conduct, you would be obliged to act in your client’s interests. There are, of course, certain situations where the code might not be breached but where you would feel uncomfortable to act. While these are valid, this is not a decision which should be arrived at lightly.
Ethical questions are based less on what one should or shouldn’t do in a given situation and much more around actually digging into a candidate’s moral disposition and opinions on different matters. To that end, your response
should be a reflection of your genuine opinion on a given issue. Some key things to consider in the course of these questions are:
- You should be prepared to defend your point of view in the face of extensive questioning. In most cases, the interviewer will push back on your stance (irrespective of what it is) to really make you justify your opinions. It is really important, while recognising that the points the interviewer might put to you may well be very reasonable, to stick to your guns when responding to this pushing. Collapsing and changing your opinion at the slightest challenge will often be considered in poor light
- On the above note, being challenged on your position does not make it wrong. It is the interviewer’s job to push you on whatever response you give, so don’t worry about being questioned
- It is important to convey your entire thought process and reasoning when responding to these questions, don’t just rush to the answer without showing the logic and rationale behind it
- Remember that, as a lawyer, you will often be placed in morally challenging situations and will be required to act with integrity and in accordance with professional standards
Here’s an example of an answer I gave when I was asked about whether a commercial solicitor in a situation similar to one described above was more or less moral than a criminal solicitor defending someone accused of child sex offences:
“
I don’t actually think it’s a matter of one being more or less moral than the other; indeed, I would tend to be of the persuasion that neither are immoral in any way. In terms of the position of a criminal defence lawyer, the principles of the right to a fair trial and innocence until proven guilty underpin the very fabric of our society. If we were to say that is immoral to defend someone accused of any crime, even as abhorrent as child sex offences, we undermine these core legal principles and actually weaken the position and safety of convictions, especially given the fact that a robust defence is the very thing which ensures convictions are safe and justice is seen to be done. Similarly, it is the role of a commercial solicitor to represent the interests of their client, on the caveat that they do not breach any professional codes of practice in their representation. As such, to attach a moral value to solicitors representing their clients’ interests where no such breach occurs would set a dangerous precedent and also severely curtail the natural progression of the private sector, upon which the economy is heavily reliant.”
Question Group 4: commercial and personal questions
The final group of questions to consider are commercial questions, where the candidate is expected to display commercial awareness, and personal questions, where a greater degree of self-insight is required than elsewhere in the interview.
“Tell me about a commercial issue you have been following in the news”. There are multiple different approaches which may be taken to choose a topic to discuss for this response. We will cover three of the most common :
- Topic type A: a single story discussed in depth
- This is the approach I personally used. It involves taking a deep dive into a current commercial issue and analysing its repercussions both in law and wider society, For perspective, issues I discussed in my own application cycle which were highly relevant at that point included issues such as:
- Carrilion collapse
- Thomas Cook collapse
- LIBOR scandal
- I also drew parallels between the current event and similar historic events of major importance, for example, between the Thomas Cook collapse and the 2007/8 global economic crisis. Although this may seem very abstract, there was a substantial discussion at the time around whether the government should prop up Thomas Cook in the same way it did the banks during the financial crisis. Ultimately it chose not to, so I then discussed the differences between the two situations which led to that decision. Using these comparisons both extended the depth of the case study itself and also showed a deeper understanding of a number of key commercial issues and the ability to relate issues to one another in a clear manner. My answers typically followed a structure like this:
- Brief introduction, headlining the issue and also the topics that I will discuss (usually 3-5 substantive points). For example, with the Thomas Cook collapse, I might headline the key issues as overheads from unprofitable bricks and mortar stores, failure to follow market trends towards booking holidays oneself, poor investment decisions, and Brexit
- Discussion of each key issue in appropriate depth, outlining its contribution to the overall end result
- Parallels with global financial crises: some similarities in the reasons leading to the collapse (for example, Fred Goodwin made poor investments for RBS which resulted in gross overexposure to the American banking market) and similar discussions regarding whether Thomas Cook could be propped up in the same way that RBS and major financial institutions were
- Discussion of the key reasons as to why this could not be the case (e.g., differences in the public interest element of each service, the ‘domino effect’ of a banking collapse due to massively over-leveraged inter-bank lending, etc)
- Invite any follow-up questions
- Topic type B: individual story, building out into broader market trends
- This approach begins the discussion with a single issue, before building this outwards to actually discuss broader market trend which may have commercial and legal implications. Current examples might include, for example:
- Bitcoin hitting new all-time highs with projections for bullishness throughout 2021, tying into a broader market trend of the rise in cryptocurrencies and the legal, commercial and regulatory challenges this poses
- Tesla’s market cap breaking growing rapidly, tying into the broader market trend of the rise in electric vehicles and the legal issues that arise amidst the growth in ‘smart tech’ (which transcends just vehicles)
- When using this response structure, it is imperative to be able to build a clear picture of how one story actually links to a wider market trend, and also to make the transition from discussing a single issue to a broad trend natural rather than jarring. Answers using this structure might follow a structure like this:
- Introducing the story and the trend that it links to, headlining the key issues that will be discussed in the response (for example, the legal and regulatory challenges posed by the rise in cryptocurrencies)
- Discussing the individual story (for example, discussing the commercial relevancy of Bitcoin strength, the reasons for it, etc)
- Linking the factors that you’ve discussed to the broad market trend of the rise in cryptocurrency
- Covering each of the key points related to the broader market trend and the potential challenges and also opportunities for commercial law firms (e.g., the legal classification of cryptocurrencies as either money or assets, perceived lack of accountability and security, but also its universal nature removing some of the currency conversion challenges associated with major transactions)
- Invite further questions
- Topic type C: multiple stories linked with a common theme
- This approach involves looking at a number of individual stories or events which are linked by a common theme which is commercially relevant in the modern world. Some examples of common themes might include:
- Rise in distressed M&A as a result of COVID-19
- Rise in high-profile insolvencies of ‘traditional’ bricks and mortar stores across a variety of sectors
- Deals blocked by competition authorities for the same or similar specific issues
- Sharing some similarities with Approach B, this approach focusses on linearly linked examples as opposed to building upwards from a single example into a broad trend. The key to a strong response using this approach is to ensure that the commonality between the examples is very clear and can be pinpointed, but also that the nuances between the different examples can also be discussed to show a stronger degree of insight into the case-by-case nature of commercial work. An answer structure for this approach might look something like this:
- Introducing the commonality and headlining the different examples which will be discussed
- Discussing the features of the commonality and also reason for its apparent prominence. For example, with the increase in distressed M&A amidst COVID-19, a broad-brush discussion of what distressed M&A is, and how it is differentiated from regular M&A, would be proceeded by an analysis of why COVID-19 has caused such a rise therein. This might include looking at industries which have been hit hardest, areas where government financial support has fallen short, and companies having insufficient savings/ too big a risk exposure to a market downturn etc)
- Analysing each example, displaying the commonalities and nuances between each case. Typically, three examples would be sufficient, although having a fourth to utilise in any follow-up questions would also be a worthwhile preparation. Recent examples of distressed M&A include Brooks Brothers’ sale in the US to Simon Property Group and Authentic Brands, the sale of Flybe intellectual property/assets/brand under administration in the UK, and the ongoing discussion of the sale of Arcadia Group, with Next Group and hedge fund David Kempner recently withdrawing a bid for Topshop with rumours of Shein, Authentic Brands Group, JD Sports, ASOS and Boohoo all rumoured to be interested in the remains of the group. Using these examples would show a degree of transnational understanding, as well as the different stages and circumstances under which distressed M&A can occur and how group companies can be split and separated during distressed M&A
Irrespective of which approach is chosen, there are some common points to remember when planning your response to this question:
- Relevancy: whatever example, or set thereof, that you choose, they must have some degree of commercial and legal impact
- Structure, structure, structure: due to the often-protracted discussions that can stem from a question like this in the competency interview, it is exceedingly important to have a clear structure for each component of your response. Ensure you have all the material facts to hand and know in advance the order you want to discuss your points to avoid getting muddled and rambling in the interview
- Don’t play all your cards: don’t necessarily explain 100% of the knowledge you have on the matter in the first instance. While this may seem counter-intuitive, reserving one or two smaller points to provide an obvious segue towards follow-up questions in those areas means that you’re mitigating the risk of being asked something you don’t know in a follow-up. Don’t reserve any information at the expense of providing a well-rounded and developed answer; but having some tact in what you discuss in the first instance can make answering follow-up questions somewhat easier.
“What are the biggest challenges facing law firms in 2021?”
This question is increasingly common in interviews and is designed to test a candidate’s knowledge of the legal industry as a whole, with a particular emphasis on how they can identify challenges and opportunities for law firms in current market conditions. In your response, it is exceedingly important to balance challenges with opportunities, and also to be
solution-focussed – able to suggest solutions to the challenges you recognise rather than just the challenges themselves. A variation of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis can be used here; I nicknamed this ‘CSO’ analysis: Challenges, Solutions, Opportunities. I would typically structure my response to this question as either:
- 2 challenges with solutions, 2 opportunities arising from changing market conditions
- 3 challenges with solutions, 1 opportunity arising from changing markets
Some current challenges to the legal industry might include:
- Big Four business services providers moving into legal advice, providing a ‘one-stop shop’
- Solutions include, as some law firms have already done, moving into other business services such as consulting to compete with the Big Four at their own game
- COVID-19 resulting in a sudden paradigm shift to WFH and the office-related challenges which will arise from the pandemic
- Challenges relating to data protection, ensuring that employees have appropriate equipment to continue work, understanding the impacts of WFH on employees’ physical and mental health
- Solutions include, enforcing technology infrastructure within the firm for equipment and data protection; stipends and grants for the purchase of technological equipment; consulting with employees to ensure appropriate care is available for any negative impacts of WFH
- (specifically related to Magic Circle firms) US-based firms storming into the London with market with astronomical salaries, trying to scoop up Magic Circle talent (e.g., David Higgins leaving Freshfields to go to Kirkland)
- Solutions include, continuing to offer superior training and other non-monetary benefits; diversifying offerings to ensure that they can offer a wider variety of specialist practice areas maintaining their prestigious working culture to attract and retain talent; changing remuneration structures at the partnership level from the traditional lockstep system to the ‘eat what you kill’ model favoured by American firms or a hybrid model combining the two
- Clients demanding continually more cost-effective legal advice without looking to compromise on the quality of work
- Solutions include, continuing to develop and leverage LegalTech to provide more cost-effective means of carrying out different tasks; looking at opening regional offices to operate as satellites to the London office, working to undertake tasks which are more expensive in London; continuing to develop nuanced billing structures which are more attractive to clients by providing value for money in other ways (e.g., sending lawyers on secondment to clients, etc)
Note: when discussing a challenge/solution, it is important to clearly identify
why a given issue presents a challenge, and also
how the suggested solution would tangibly mitigate the challenge posed. Clearly signposting these parts of your answer will help the interviewer follow the structure of your answer.
Some current opportunities in the legal market might include:
- Ever-growing array of tech developers making it steadily easier to access and leverage LegalTech at more competitive costs, or using a service-exchange mechanism, similar to that adopted by Allen & Overy, where tech start-ups are given office space and legal advice in exchange for creating LegalTech for the firm to leverage
- COVID-19 suppressing certain elements of the legal market allowing for counter-cyclical investment in smaller departments within firms so that, when the market rebounds, firms have stronger practice areas to make a more competitive market offering
- Brexit creating the need for more companies across various industries to seek expert legal advice in areas where they normally wouldn’t need to, creating a market gap which can be filled by commercial firms
- The rise in renewable energy, which seems increasingly here to stay, creating a new sector in which firms can offer expert advice
Being able to include solutions and opportunities as part of your response to a question like this indicate that a candidate is solution-focussed and able to analyse the legal market in a nuanced and advanced manner. This is, of course, highly relevant to a career in commercial law.
“What three departments from our firm would you bring to a first meeting with X company as a new client?” [or] “What three departments from our firm would you bring to a first meeting with a new client who you knew nothing about?”
A candidate’s response to this question will obviously depend on a number of factors:
- Depending on the phrasing of the question, you may know certain information about the prospective client (for example, whether they are a private limited company or publicly listed) – your response should consider how much you know about the firm
- Consider the strengths and weaknesses of the firm you’re interviewing at. Some firms have particularly strong practices in certain areas, with smaller practices in others. As such, you will probably want to introduce the firm’s strongest practice areas in the first instance
- If you are given a set of key facts about the client (for example, that it is a private equity firm, that it has had recent bad press with rumours of being sued, that it is considering listing, etc), pay close attention to these and nuance your answer appropriately
- If you have little or no information about the prospective client, consider what teams within the firm would be best placed to make an initial assessment of the legal needs of the client and then refer to other teams as appropriate. Also consider what types of legal advice that is likely to be relevant to every large company: areas such as advisory tax, advisory regulatory, and general corporate advisory teams may be best placed to make these initial assessments.
“What is your biggest weakness?”
Talking about your weaknesses can be very intimidating, and understandably so: when we are interviewing with a law firm, we want to show the best version of ourselves and present as attractive a candidate as possible. Being asked about your biggest weakness is designed to test your emotional intelligence and self-insight, as well as how you grow from personal flaws. There are a few key dos and don’ts when considering your response to this question, for example:
Do:
- Choose to discuss a weakness which can be developed and improved with time
- Be genuine: don’t try and ‘invent’ a weakness here, transparency in answering questions such as this is extremely important, and it is obvious when a candidate is not being transparent
- Discuss how you have taken steps to identify and remedy this weakness, and what progress you have seen in yourself since taking those steps
- Show your desire to learn and develop as a person in your response
Don’t:
- Say that you don’t have weaknesses, or that you’ve ‘grown out’ of them: this comes over as conceited and displaying a lack of emotional intelligence and self-insight
- Try and frame a weakness as a positive: it is much more authentic to discuss a genuine weakness which you’ve recognised and worked on. It also displays a lack of insight
- Use the “I’m a perfectionist” response… unfortunately, this is massively over-used and is viewed as a ‘cop out’ response. Try and be more innovative in your response to provide a more nuanced and unique answer
Due to the fact that the structure to your response will vary considerably based on the example you choose to give, as such, it is extremely challenging to provide a useful mock answer. Just follow the above dos and don’ts and you’ll be in good stead!
“What other law firms have you applied to?”
This question can be challenging to approach, not least because it seems counterintuitive to discuss the relative merits of other law firms in an interview. Contrary to common anxieties, however, this question can actually be used to validate your answers to the three whys, especially “why this firm?”. Using this opportunity to identify the commonalities between the firm you’re attending and other firms to whom you have sent applications is essential in this response. For example, if the interviewing firm has a strong private equity practice which you mentioned was attractive to you, and you’ve applied to other firms with prominent private equity practices, this actually enhances the authenticity of your reasoning for prior questions. Similarly, if the interviewing firm has a particular office structure designed to support trainees’ learning from seniors, and another firm to whom you’ve applied have the same model, this would also be a very valid response. Some commonalities to look for include:
- Training model (e.g., number of seats etc)
- Office model (e.g., room sharing to learn from seniors)
- Prominent practice areas
- Focus on LegalTech
- International strategy
Top Tips from the TCLA Team!
Dheepa’s Top Tips:
1. Be yourself: Don’t provide answers that you think firms want to hear about, instead provide answers that really reflect what you bring to the table as a candidate. When answering motivational “why” questions, really take the time to think about your experiences and why they have led you to this career and that particular firm. Similarly for competency questions, use situations which really and truly demonstrate your best abilities, even if these are more personal. Demonstrating tangible reasons by drawing on your experiences and being able to craft a compelling narrative of your journey is what I personally think sets some candidates apart from others.
2. Competency questions: Make sure you are focusing on the things that you yourself did and not your team or others did. Think “I” and not “We”. I sometimes find it helpful to also add an additional R (reflection point) to the STAR/CAR method, especially for questions that ask you to speak about a negative experience or situation. This is an opportunity for you to reflect and include anything you might do differently in the future for a more effective result.
Jessica’s Top Tips:
Focus on answering the question. If the question is asking you about your time management skills, you don’t
need to try and force other competencies in the answer. If the question is only asking you about why commercial law, you don’t have to start talking about why the firm. Often people try to over anticipate the next possible question rather than focusing on the one they have just been asked. Remember your interviewer will ask you further questions if they need/want to.
Naomi’s Top Tips:
1) Sell your story! Be careful not to make generic statements about your motivations for a career in commercial law. Rather, structure your answer to walk your interviewer through your personal journey from the initial spark that drew you to a career in law, to the experiences and interests that have led you to this present interview (don’t be afraid to talk about initial interests in other career roles and your reasons for changing to law)
2) Quantify! When answering competency questions make sure to quantify any relevant detail e.g. how many people were in the team you were assigned to lead, how much time were you given to complete the last minute task, how many individuals was your start up able to reach.
3) Show rather than tell! When planning your responses to competency-based questions make sure you focus on the action element of the STAR technique. A useful way to do this is to imagine that you are trying to explain to your interviewer a skill or trait without mentioning the exact term. Therefore, when preparing your answers consider and focus on the actions you think would be most relevant to the trait you are trying to portray?
Alice’s Top Tips:
Focus on not ‘waffleing’ or being too formulaic. The best way to avoid this is in preparation - keep to bullet points for the different sections of STAR(R) - this ensures that you keep to the bare bones of what you need without adding unnecessary extra details but it also avoids scripting the response so you do not sound as though you are just regurgitating what has been pre-prepared. You want the delivery to sound authentic and conversational!
