General Discussion Thread 2020-21

[Shalli]

The way many case studies are designed is that they have so many points that even the best candidate wouldn’t have enough time to cover them all. I wouldn’t fixate too much on whether you are hitting the same points as a written example to a case study exercise as it is likely to be the case that either the mock exercise isn’t that thorough, or that it only highlights some of the points you could pick up.

Thank you - that is v helpful. Would there usually be a set of core points that should be covered? i.e. negative marking if they are not picked up? Sorry for all the questions, nerves are clearly hitting me!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thank you - that is v helpful. Would there usually be a set of core points that should be covered? i.e. negative marking if they are not picked up? Sorry for all the questions, nerves are clearly hitting me!

There won’t be negative marking. Some points might have more weighting though.

But given the variety of case studies (firms will usually have multiple versions within the same cycle), those “main” points are unlikely to be the same. Trying to predict what they are isn’t worth it. It’s much better to invest the time into understanding general concepts around commercial awareness and law.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi everyone,
when it comes to explaining the process between choosing firms to apply to in interview, is it fair enough to just say I only applied to firms which I had met so I could really get a feel for the people? Or should it be based more on practices etc.

I don’t think you can rely on that alone. Something made you decide which firms to meet, so clearly there is something more to your decisions. I bet you also haven’t applied to every firm you have met.

 

[futuretraineecity]

I don’t think you can rely on that alone. Something made you decide which firms to meet, so clearly there is something more to your decisions. I bet you also haven’t applied to every firm you have met.

Very true haha thank you!

 

[Daniel Boden]

CC/FF.

Kirkland, Latham and Weil are the US firms.

https://chambers.com/guide/uk?publi...eaId=2545&subsectionTypeId=1&locationId=11805

These names are for high-end/high-value deals. For mid-market PE, Travers Smith and Macfarlanes are very well regarded and have excellent reputations with some really good lawyers.

For PE/VC investment, Taylor Wessing are very good.

In the Funds space, outside of US firms, Eversheds, HSF and Simmons & Simmons are also very good in the UK

 

[Velikilawyer123]

Although not a uniform response (it will vary between candidates) this type of comment can be down to two things generally.

Nerves can play a part - not just talking too quickly, but never just being at all comfortable or at ease in the process. This could be fidgeting, lacking eye contact/too much eye contact/not knowing where to look - anything that suggests your nerves have just taken over.

The other is that it some people just come across intense through their character. This can be a multitude of things like:

• They take the interview too seriously - they can do things like fail to smile or come across as having a guard up.
• They potentially come across as overly defensive when challenged.
• They talk for too long - their answers become far too detailed and they go off on tangents to try and cover every base going
• They come across as the “perfectionist” - someone who will strive for perfection at all costs to maintain their own sanity

Generally, an “intense” comment is that they just can’t see the person as being easy or pleasant to work with. So if asked any questions about working with others, the answers to those questions might not have been great either.

I don't know you or your situation so not sure whether this will be accurate or helpful.
When I did an assessment centre earlier this year, there was a guy that I would probably describe as "intense" in my group exercise. He was very controlling and dominant and I don't think it came across well. We were supposed to be doing a negotiations exercise but he just refused to give the other side anything (even things our client didn't care about), then when we go to the things our client cared about the other side were reluctant to compromise because they'd already compromised on the stuff we weren't supposed to care about. He didn't convince any of us that it was a good strategy, just insisted to the point where we gave in because we were wasting our entire prep time arguing with him. In this situation, the feedback could be "intense", "overbearing", "controlling", "unwilling to listen to feedback", "unwilling to compromise", "puts own ego before client needs" etc.
My mentor at a different firm told me that when they're interviewing/networking, they use a "long plane journey" test. Basically, could they cope with a long plane journey with this person and not go insane. We all know that the worst person to sit next to on a plane is someone who just does not shut up the entire time and goes on and on and on and on for twelve hours talking about absolutely every single little thing that pops into their head. Perhaps, (probably from nerves or a genuine passion for the firm), you were just talking a bit too much about everything? In this situation, the feedback could be "intense", "unable to focus on one task", "doesn't understand professional boundaries", "unable to work independently", "unable to filter what they'll say in front of clients", "would drive me insane if I were stuck in an office with them until 2am" etc.

I see, thanks so much, that's very illuminating!

There weren't any competency questions regarding working with others (there weren't any competency questions at all actually, as that had been covered in the first-stage interview, which I passed), but there was a group presentation at the end where we had to pick a topic and give a short presentation on it. Interestingly, the "too intense" comments didn't come from the HR who was with us in the video call while we were preparing the presentation, they came from the partner whom we were giving the presentation to. There wasn't a lot of opportunity there to really work as a team, as in, we each just talked about our own part and then the partner asked a few questions, so I was a bit surprised by the comments coming from him. I just assumed it was the way I presented, perhaps a bit (over)confidently about the topics I felt I knew well? Could that count as being intense?

 

[Jessica Booker]

I see, thanks so much, that's very illuminating!

There weren't any competency questions regarding working with others (there weren't any competency questions at all actually, as that had been covered in the first-stage interview, which I passed), but there was a group presentation at the end where we had to pick a topic and give a short presentation on it. Interestingly, the "too intense" comments didn't come from the HR who was with us in the video call while we were preparing the presentation, they came from the partner whom we were giving the presentation to. There wasn't a lot of opportunity there to really work as a team, as in, we each just talked about our own part and then the partner asked a few questions, so I was a bit surprised by the comments coming from him. I just assumed it was the way I presented, perhaps a bit (over)confidently about the topics I felt I knew well? Could that count as being intense?

I doubt it will be a (over) confidence thing. They are different points.

did you answer most or all of the questions?

 

[Velikilawyer123]

I doubt it will be a (over) confidence thing. They are different points.

did you answer most or all of the questions?

No, I actually felt that I had answered too few! I think out of 6-7 questions (including followups) I answered maybe 1, and followed up on 1 more which another person from my group answered (there were four of us in the group). Another guy answered like 4, and several in a row, so I was sure if anyone would get a negative comment on that it would be him, but if anything I was afraid I would be told I didn't stand out enough - quite the opposite from being too intense I think!

 

[Velikilawyer123]

Does anyone have any insight into Paul Hastings TC interview?

When did you hear back from PH?

 

[Jessica Booker]

No, I actually felt that I had answered too few! I think out of 6-7 questions (including followups) I answered maybe 1, and followed up on 1 more which another person from my group answered (there were four of us in the group). Another guy answered like 4, and several in a row, so I was sure if anyone would get a negative comment on that it would be him, but if anything I was afraid I would be told I didn't stand out enough - quite the opposite from being too intense I think!

It may have been the manner in which you delivered your part of the presentation then (eg style, pace etc).

Did you say that more than one person had said the intense comment? (I may have read it wrong).

 

[Velikilawyer123]

It may have been the manner in which you delivered your part of the presentation then (eg style, pace etc).

Did you say that more than one person had said the intense comment? (I may have read it wrong).

Yes, so basically out of the 3 parts of the AC, the intense comments came from two of them. One was the partner doing the group exercise, the other was a partner with whom I had a discussion following a written task - there was a topic to choose and write about for about an hour, and then another hour of discussion regarding the topic I had chosen and what I wrote about it. It was pretty commercial, like "do you think a company should take into account X" or "how would your answer change if Y" or "overall, do you consider Z to have been a successful policy" and it was on a topic I felt I knew pretty well, so in retrospect I'm thinking maybe my answers came across as overconfident? Like not enough counterarguments, etc.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Yes, so basically out of the 3 parts of the AC, the intense comments came from two of them. One was the partner doing the group exercise, the other was a partner with whom I had a discussion following a written task - there was a topic to choose and write about for about an hour, and then another hour of discussion regarding the topic I had chosen and what I wrote about it. It was pretty commercial, like "do you think a company should take into account X" or "how would your answer change if Y" or "overall, do you consider Z to have been a successful policy" and it was on a topic I felt I knew pretty well, so in retrospect I'm thinking maybe my answers came across as overconfident? Like not enough counterarguments, etc.

I don’t think it’s an over confidence thing - that’s very different to being intense.

As the comment was said by two different people, they could both be relatively minor comments but given they have both raised it its enough for them to be concerned.

I suspect this is something with how you communicate, not what you communicate.

 

[LS12]

Hi can anyone advise me on the best firms for banking and financial services please?

 

[thirdtimelucky]

What is the best way to find out about a firm’s main practice areas? I know Legal 500 is good for top ranked but these aren’t always directly correlated with main practice areas! I’m particularly interested in firms with a good litigation/disputes department

 

[Velikilawyer123]

I don’t think it’s an over confidence thing - that’s very different to being intense.

As the comment was said by two different people, they could both be relatively minor comments but given they have both raised it its enough for them to be concerned.

I suspect this is something with how you communicate, not what you communicate.

Hmm that's an interesting point, and yeah I agree, I think it's probably more to do with how I communicated my thoughts there (though I have to say I haven't ever gotten this type of feedback in my previous interviews / ACs, so maybe it was just this specific one).

Just going back to your point about the plane journey / mentoring test, what would make you like a candidate? What kind of quality would really sell a candidate's likeability to an interviewer?

 

[Daniel Boden]

Hi can anyone advise me on the best firms for banking and financial services please?

Again, check Chambers UK for their Banking & Finance rankings

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hmm that's an interesting point, and yeah I agree, I think it's probably more to do with how I communicated my thoughts there (though I have to say I haven't ever gotten this type of feedback in my previous interviews / ACs, so maybe it was just this specific one).

Just going back to your point about the plane journey / mentoring test, what would make you like a candidate? What kind of quality would really sell a candidate's likeability to an interviewer?

you don’t have to like a candidate. You just have to believe that they won’t be a distraction from their work and/or your own.

 

[Jessica Booker]

For those who have had issues with A&Os SJT - you might want to look at this

A&O SJT

 

[Andrew M]

What is the best way to find out about a firm’s main practice areas? I know Legal 500 is good for top ranked but these aren’t always directly correlated with main practice areas! I’m particularly interested in firms with a good litigation/disputes department

I tend to use both Chambers & Partners and Legal500.

If you look through the tiered practice areas on Legal500 for a firm, you'll likely see that Litigation comes up frequently as a specific practice area (e.g. Banking & Finance Litigation, Commercial Litigation, ) or within the description of work typically undertaken within a practice area (e.g. Health, Social Housing).

But Chambers and Partners does have the broader "Litigation" groupings, if you're looking to compare (e.g. Google chambers and partners litigation north west).

 

[XARA]

Just to add to this, I think more than Finanace/Banking Slaughters are particularly renowned for their public M&A work. Just google some of the biggest mergers this year and you’ll see they probably hand a hand in most of it!

Thank you !