Explaining interest in firm

[C]

Hello,

I was wondering if one of the methods I'm taking to explain my interest in a firm makes sense/works.

I often mention that I like a particular seat the firm offers to trainees and the firm's leading capabilities in a particular practice area - and I tie this back to why it appeals to me personally (e.g. my previous experiences built my appreciation for certain practice areas or I just like the idea of them etc). I was wondering if this is too niche or specific a reasoning and whether I should instead focus on the firm's capabilities more generally so it doesnt look like I'm discarding the firm's overall expertise, e.g. offering innovative solutions or working with high-profile clientele.

any insight would be great, thank you

 

[Lumree]

Hello,

I was wondering if one of the methods I'm taking to explain my interest in a firm makes sense/works.

I often mention that I like a particular seat the firm offers to trainees and the firm's leading capabilities in a particular practice area - and I tie this back to why it appeals to me personally (e.g. my previous experiences built my appreciation for certain practice areas or I just like the idea of them etc). I was wondering if this is too niche or specific a reasoning and whether I should instead focus on the firm's capabilities more generally so it doesnt look like I'm discarding the firm's overall expertise, e.g. offering innovative solutions or working with high-profile clientele.

any insight would be great, thank you

This is a great question and one I recently had myself!

My take is that in an application, there’s no harm in honing in on a specific area or practice that appeals to you. It’s more likely to be convincing and true, especially if backed up by your experiences in that area. My only caveat is that in an interview you may want to expand your point slightly. For example, suggesting you are interested in other practice areas too, for similar reasons, but perhaps not having experience in them. This is to save coming across as overly passionate or committed to a specific practice area when that probably isn’t the case.

I’d be interested to hear what the forum team have to say though! @Jacob Miller @Dheepa @Naomi U what do you think?

 

[Naomi U]

This is a great question and one I recently had myself!

My take is that in an application, there’s no harm in honing in on a specific area or practice that appeals to you. It’s more likely to be convincing and true, especially if backed up by your experiences in that area. My only caveat is that in an interview you may want to expand your point slightly. For example, suggesting you are interested in other practice areas too, for similar reasons, but perhaps not having experience in them. This is to save coming across as overly passionate or committed to a specific practice area when that probably isn’t the case.

I’d be interested to hear what the forum team have to say though! @Jacob Miller @Dheepa @Naomi U what do you think?

Hi guys!

I think both your approaches are great and similar to what I often did. I also don't see any harm in honing into a specific practice area, especially if this is one of the firm's key areas.

I would often structure my answer using the pointers below.

- The firm's work e.g. interesting/landmark deals, specific industries, clients etc.
- The training structure e.g. seat structure ( how many seat rotations, chances for international or client secondments, firm's approach to work)
- The firm's culture (this will of course depend on the level of interaction you have had with the firm or if you have a specific area of interest regarding the firms culture e.g. D&I initiatives)

For each I would focus on 1 or 2 key things then expand in detail and relate back to me and my experiences.

 

[Lumree]

Hi guys!

I think both your approaches are great and similar to what I often did. I also don't see any harm in honing into a specific practice area, especially if this is one of the firm's key areas.
As for my personal approach, I would often structure my answer using the pointers below.

- The firm's work e.g. interesting/landmark deals, specific industries, clients etc.
- The training contract structure e.g. seat structure ( how many seat rotations, chances for international or client secondments, firm's approach to work e.g. do they have a multi-specialist approach)
- The firm's culture (this will of course depend on the level of interaction you have had with the firm or if you have a specific area of interest regarding the firms culture e.g. the firm's D&I initiatives)

For each I would focus on 1 or 2 key things then expand in detail and relate back to me and my experiences.

Thanks Naomi, just for my own reflection, what practice areas or clients etc resonated with you? What experiences did you often refer to in relation these to motivations?

 

[Naomi U]

Hi @Lumree

I'm still very open-minded as to which areas I am most interested in, as I think most people are during the early stages of their careers.

As for why- I went to a number of networking events. Therefore, I was able to take part in activities and speak to individuals in a variety of areas to gain more insight. However, you can also talk about your extra-curricular experiences e.g. mooting and negotiation competitions at university, any interesting deals and news stories you have been following or even through the modules you study or plan to study.

It's really all about you! What do you like to do, what experiences have you had, and how does this resonate with that specific practice area.

 

[Dheepa]

I always structured my answers in two parts:

a) Interest in the firm's work (the most important part in my opinion, since they are at the end of hiring you to do the job)
b) Culture which for me included anything to do with diversity initiatives, pro bono emphasis and any insights I had gained from speaking to people at the firm.

I actually always did my best to hone in on the firm's biggest/most important practice areas by tying my interest to my own experiences. I always felt that this made my application to a firm more convincing as it demonstrated that I had not only taken the time to research their strengths but that I was keen to actually do the work that generated most of their revenue. That being said, I tried to keep generic by focusing on broader areas of law, like an interest in transactional work for transactional firms or when I was applying to HSF for example I really focused on all mooting I did and how that gave me an interest in disputes work. That way you're being specific without necessarily committing yourself to an overly niche practice area.

Hope that helps!

 

[C]

@Lumree @Naomi U @Dheepa thank you so much for your replies and insight! I agree with everything that's been said.
I do always make sure I talk about something a bit more generic like the international opportunities a firm offers or their investment in innovation etc before honing in on which practice area or seat appeals to me. Hopefully this is a good balance.
However - if sometimes I don't have particular experience relating to a practice area I'm interested in, should I just not mention why it interests me? Even if I can justify my interest by saying why the prospect of engaging in certain aspects of work in that practice area appeals to me?

Just an example to explain what I mean above:
"I retain a strong interest in projects work. In addition to receiving opportunities to work on high-value deals involving a range of stakeholders, I am drawn to how the deal-making in this area often produces genuine, tangible improvements in people's lives." + pair that with evidence of the firm being ranked highly for projects work.

 

[Jacob Miller]

@Lumree @Naomi U @Dheepa
However - if sometimes I don't have particular experience relating to a practice area I'm interested in, should I just not mention why it interests me? Even if I can justify my interest by saying why the prospect of engaging in certain aspects of work in that practice area appeals to me?

I think that would be a reasonable approach, personally I did this for areas where I hadn't gained great exposure to them personally. The one thing I would absolutely reinforce though is to be 1000% sure the firm actually offers a service in that area. I have heard of people before who have spoken for minutes on end about how they love the idea of certain litigation work, only to then be informed that the firm does almost exclusively PE stuff. Not a good look.

I would advise some caution here though- firms don't necessarily want to take someone on who seems only to have their mind set on one particular thing. I would always balance this with showing a good degree of open-mindedness in your response too.

 

[Lumree]

Did you often find your reasons for why commercial law segued into why this specific firm? For example, one my reasons for why commercial law Is that I’m interested in business strategy, and that has led me to apply to quite a lot of firms with a very specific sector based approach.

Given that, do you think it’s ok if there is a similarity between my why commercial law answer and why this firm, albeit framed in a different context to properly target the question?

 

[Jacob Miller]

Did you often find your reasons for why commercial law segued into why this specific firm? For example, one my reasons for why commercial law Is that I’m interested in business strategy, and that has led me to apply to quite a lot of firms with a very specific sector based approach.

Given that, do you think it’s ok if there is a similarity between my why commercial law answer and why this firm, albeit framed in a different context to properly target the question?

Yeah personally I found there was a lot of overlap- it wouldn't be the first time that I personally more or less answered both questions together, as my approach was always to link each individual point back to the firm I was at at that time. As long as you frame your responses and examples appropriately and make sure that, first and foremost, you're absolutely nailing the question you're being asked, I would tend to say you should be fine. In my experience, if the interviewer felt that from my answer they also had enough info that they'd normally obtain from another answer, they'd typically just say something like "well normally I'd ask you about X, but I feel you've already covered that enough so we'll move onto the next topic...". Similarly, if they don't, they'll just go ahead and ask the next question anyway.
To that end, I would make sure you've got a clear framework for both rather than going out your way to cram this into one as it will also often depend on the interviewer's style (eg, they might just let you sit and talk or they might be more conversational and ask follow up or secondary questions which lead to a more extended overall answer covering multiple bases).

 

[Lumree]

Yeah personally I found there was a lot of overlap- it wouldn't be the first time that I personally more or less answered both questions together, as my approach was always to link each individual point back to the firm I was at at that time. As long as you frame your responses and examples appropriately and make sure that, first and foremost, you're absolutely nailing the question you're being asked, I would tend to say you should be fine. In my experience, if the interviewer felt that from my answer they also had enough info that they'd normally obtain from another answer, they'd typically just say something like "well normally I'd ask you about X, but I feel you've already covered that enough so we'll move onto the next topic...". Similarly, if they don't, they'll just go ahead and ask the next question anyway.
To that end, I would make sure you've got a clear framework for both rather than going out your way to cram this into one as it will also often depend on the interviewer's style (eg, they might just let you sit and talk or they might be more conversational and ask follow up or secondary questions which lead to a more extended overall answer covering multiple bases).

That’s good to know there was overlap for you! I agree it’s important to appreciate the difference in the questions at the same time.

My focus and framing is of course different but I feel the underlying motivations naturally complement each other, so I’m glad you felt you didn’t have to keep a clear separation between the two!

Thank you!

 

[Jacob Miller]

That’s good to know there was overlap for you! I agree it’s important to appreciate the difference in the questions at the same time.

My focus and framing is of course different but I feel the underlying motivations naturally complement each other, so I’m glad you felt you didn’t have to keep a clear separation between the two!

Thank you!

Happy to help.

Remember that this was only my particular approach and, as such, others may have differing opinions on the 'best' way to approach it. I would always recommend listeninG to a number of peoples' advice before deciding on which approach (or combination of approaches) you might wish to take!

 

[Jacob Miller]

Hi, how would you go about justifying your motivation for choosing a more London-based City law firm with less of an international reach? I expect the typical follow-up questions to this would be 'If you applied to MC/US firms, why did you also apply to us?' and 'What do you think of our international strategy?'.

My honest reason would be that I applied to a wide range of firms to figure out for myself what ultimately suits my training preference. This includes London-based as well as regional firms, but I am finding that justifying my motivation by saying that I am exploring my options is less convincing for a London-based firm!

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Hi,

I'm assuming by 'less international' you mean single-office firms who use a best friends model (ie Slaughters/ Macfarlanes/ Travers)?

First of all, I would consider your framing of the response quite carefully. These firms aren't any less international in the work they carry out, they just take a different approach to multi-jurisdictional work.

In terms of responding to the 'If you've applied to X, why apply to us?' question, I think a combination of pragmatism and acknowledging that both firms have benefits on the international standpoint, but also finding alternative parallels (eg if both firms have a strong PE/ Litigation/ M&A practice, focus on that). The other thing that I always said- which I don't think there's any shame in saying- is that, at the end of the day, you have to be pragmatic and, in an exceptionally competitive industry where you're competing with some of the strongest graduates in the world at any given time, that means making a variety of applications to a variety of types of firms.

In terms of responding to a 'what do you think of our international strategy', I would personally just break down the benefits to the best-friends model and then resolve these to why you feel you could actually benefit from them. I would encourage you to think about international risk exposure and ensuring the absolute best quality of international work here. Another reason I usually added was that, for various reasons, an international secondment isn't an opportunity which I find in the least bit appealing. When I spent time with several firms with loads of international offices, I felt there was actually a lot of pressure to go on a secondment, even as far as a negative perception of you if you didn't go on one. Working from single-office firm is much more appealing in that light.

Hope this helps

 

[C]

Thanks so much for your help! @Jacob Miller

 

[Lauren]

I was wondering how should you talk about an interest in a particular practice area without making it seem like ruling out others to a certain extent?

 

[Naomi U]

I was wondering how should you talk about an interest in a particular practice area without making it seem like ruling out others to a certain extent?

Hi @Lauren

Personally, I don't see any wrong with expressing interest in a particular practice area. Of course, the structure of your answer will depend on the wording of the question but I would say something along the lines of, whilst I am still very open-minded, I have a particular interest in X, and then explain why e.g. you attended a workshop/webinar, you find deals/clients in that areas particularly interesting etc.

I would just keep an eye out and avoid saying things like I prefer researching to drafting or something along these lines, as you don't want to rule out activities that you would be expected to carry out during your other seats. I also think this could potentially show a lack of understanding about the role of a trainee. Also, make sure you have a good understanding of the firm's practice areas e.g. which are their biggest/ main groups vs which are their small more specialised groups. Some small PAs will take only 1-2 trainees a seat so ideally you don't want to be going on and on about a group that you statistically may not end up in.

So overall my tips would be: lead with an open mind, express your interest and offer an explanation why.

Hope this helps

 

[Lauren]

Sorry for all the questions on this, this is an area I fell short on at a previous AC so I want to give a really good answer this time

 

[Jessica Booker]

I was wondering how should you talk about an interest in a particular practice area without making it seem like ruling out others to a certain extent?

you just don’t bang on about it. If every bit of evidence suggests that’s your interest, then that’s an issue. So if you say you favourite module/highest grade/masters degree is in that subject, if the majority of your work experience is in that area, and if then all your answers focus on why you would enjoy it, why you would be good at it, then that’s a problem for most firms (not all).