How to answer why us?

[S87]

I struggle with on specific question: Why us?

I know that I should consider a number of things: the practice areas and for example a specific deal; the type of training, the retention rate, culture, diversity. However, I noticed that I tend to repeat the words used by the firms on their websites, so I waffle and tell them something that they already know.

What was your approach when you had to answer this question? How do you explain a deal in a TC application?

I look forward to reading your response.

Regards

 

[Jaysen]

It's fine to repeat something descriptive about a firm from the website -- be it a strength in a practice area or statistics about a firm's retention rates -- as long as you are writing about why it appeals to you. If you are writing why, you shouldn't find yourself telling them something they know, because your reasons will be personal to you.

I would research a law firm (back then The Lawyer was not behind a paywall, so this was a little easier). I would then identify 2-3 aspects of the firm that interested me and explain why -- using evidence to back up my points where I could.

I didn't describe a deal too often in my applications, so I'll leave that to someone else!

 

[SameerS]

Just a small point wanted to clarify - I am just confused as to your

"I would then identify 2-3 aspects of the firm that interested me and explain why -- using evidence to back up my points where I could."

Let's say you said identified an aspect of a firm - let's say its a practice area - M/A for example - so you say I am heavily interested in M/A

Then you would explain why - (I am heavily interested in M/A because (and give your reasons) - (AT THIS POINT, YOU STILL HAVE NOT LINKED ANYTHING TO FIRM)

Would you then back it up by saying something specific unique about a firm- The firm's involvement in a deal or their department was ranked in Tier 1 etc)

Would you then say how that specific information about their deal or department links with your interests)


I just read your answer from another post to use as an example:

"I found PE interesting. Why? Fast-paced deals/sophisticated clients/exposure to a variety of businesses. I then explained how Weil is at the top of the market for PE"

Two questions leading from that

Isn't the part in bold too vague and not specific - I mean fast paced deals/sophisticated clients/exposure to business - Its very similar to M/A - Why did you not choose that.

Could you just show me you linked Weil being on top of the market back with your interest?

 

[Jaysen]

Just a small point wanted to clarify - I am just confused as to your

"I would then identify 2-3 aspects of the firm that interested me and explain why -- using evidence to back up my points where I could."

Let's say you said identified an aspect of a firm - let's say its a practice area - M/A for example - so you say I am heavily interested in M/A

Then you would explain why - (I am heavily interested in M/A because (and give your reasons) - (AT THIS POINT, YOU STILL HAVE NOT LINKED ANYTHING TO FIRM)

Would you then back it up by saying something specific unique about a firm- The firm's involvement in a deal or their department was ranked in Tier 1 etc)

Would you then say how that specific information about their deal or department links with your interests)


I just read your answer from another post to use as an example:

"I found PE interesting. Why? Fast-paced deals/sophisticated clients/exposure to a variety of businesses. I then explained how Weil is at the top of the market for PE"

Two questions leading from that

Isn't the part in bold too vague and not specific - I mean fast paced deals/sophisticated clients/exposure to business - Its very similar to M/A - Why did you not choose that.

Could you just show me you linked Weil being on top of the market back with your interest?

1. Yes, that's generally how I did it. I should add: the structure I mentioned isn't supposed to be prescriptive. There are many ways to approach this question. Although in all cases, you should tailor your reasons to the firm you are applying to.

2. If that was my answer for the application form, then yes, it would be too generic.

Fast paced deals = private equity acquisitions tend to be completed in a shorter time frame than a typical M&A deal.
Sophisticated clients = PE firms acquire companies regularly. A typical M&A buyer may have completed relatively few deals before. So PE firms require a lot less hand holding -- they know how these deals are done.
Exposure to a variety of businesses = PE firms acquire a variety of companies. M&A buyers typically acquire one or two companies that are aligned with their business.

The above is just to explain what I meant by each phrase. In an answer, if I used these, I would focus on why "sophisticated clients" or "fast paced deals" was something I was interested in, rather than telling the firm how PE was different to M&A. For example, if I was writing about the shorter time frame in a PE deal, I might say I would have the opportunity to get involved in more deals during my training contract.

3. If I recall, I only discussed Weil's position and then talked about my interest in PE.

 

[SameerS]

Thanks, Jaysen for clarifying. Now I have a greater clarification as to how PE differs from M/ A, big thanks for that.



I hate to trouble you further, my apologies in advance.

Let's say WEIL is on top of the market for P.E and this helps you because you are into P.E, so this would mean you are going to involved in more exciting/more global deals.

(The bit in bold is slightly vague, How can I make the link (top of the market to my interest in PE), stronger?

 

[Jaysen]

Thanks, Jaysen for clarifying. Now I have a greater clarification as to how PE differs from M/ A, big thanks for that.



I hate to trouble you further, my apologies in advance.

Let's say WEIL is on top of the market for P.E and this helps you because you are into P.E, so this would mean you are going to involved in more exciting/more global deals.

(The bit in bold is slightly vague, How can I make the link (top of the market to my interest in PE), stronger?

No need to apologise, it's what I'm here for!

It should be enough to discuss how Weil is at the top of the market and then explain your interest in PE. I know I've talked about making a strong link in the past, but in this case, by giving specific reasons for your interest in PE, you are by definition, demonstrating an interest in the kind of work Weil does (because Weil and PE are so tied).

If you do want to make a link at the end of your point, you certainly still can, but you would need something specific. So, if you like PE, why might you want to work at a firm that is positioned at the top of the market? Well, perhaps you want to work on the biggest (and sometimes, most complex) PE transactions -- the kind of transactions that headline the FT, span multiple jurisdictions and help to shape a segment of the market? Or, perhaps, you think working with some of the brightest minds in PE -- both on the legal and the client side -- will accelerate your learning?

 

[yanerlim]

I struggle with on specific question: Why us?

I know that I should consider a number of things: the practice areas and for example a specific deal; the type of training, the retention rate, culture, diversity. However, I noticed that I tend to repeat the words used by the firms on their websites, so I waffle and tell them something that they already know.

What was your approach when you had to answer this question? How do you explain a deal in a TC application?

I look forward to reading your response.

Regards

Generally, the way I would approach this is by reading how the firm has grown and in what direction is the firm growing. This is because different firms have a different vision in how they want to operate, which makes it easier to tell apart what qualities x firm has compared to y firm. Then, link its growth strategy / how it operates/ expands to your career aspirations.

 

[AJ]

Question I’ve been thinking about as I’m researching a firm and trying to write up why I want to work for them...

Is it possible to have a good why us answer without reference to deals or rankings or high profile clients but instead by reference to the type of work and type of firm??

 

[Jaysen]

Question I’ve been thinking about as I’m researching a firm and trying to write up why I want to work for them...

Is it possible to have a good why us answer without reference to deals or rankings or high profile clients but instead by reference to the type of work and type of firm??

Yes, 100%.

 

[AJ]

Yes, 100%.

Hmm thanks. Food for thought.
Even for so called “specialists” like Kirkland in the PE space or HSF in litigation?
Might be a refreshing/different application answer. But would it not shout out a lack of research? I imagine if the why was tailored to you, it could be justified. Firm do advise don’t tell them about what they already know.

 

[Jaysen]

Hmm thanks. Food for thought.
Even for so called “specialists” like Kirkland in the PE space or HSF in litigation?
Might be a refreshing/different application answer. But would it not shout out a lack of research? I imagine if the why was tailored to you, it could be justified. Firm do advise don’t tell them about what they already know.

Especially for firms like Kirkland and HSF. It's a better answer if you have a genuine interest in the work than artificially referring to awards/deals (which students often do).

Ben explains it well here: https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/the-complete-guide-to-training-contract-applications/

 

[Jaysen]

Just cheekily reviving this thread with a q specific question: how do people generally write about a firms culture if they haven't met anyone from that firm? Im currently doing a TC application for a firm that stands out for its culture, but I'm struggling to provide 'evidence' for it, if that makes sense - was wondering if anyone had any tips when it comes to a firm's culture!

I would use evidence of their training programme/the kind of initiatives they run. You can then make inferences about their culture from those facts.

E.g., Do trainees have the opportunity to contribute ideas to the firm? Does the firm have a diversity quota? Does the firm offer a reverse mentoring scheme?

You can note that examples like these tell you what the firm cares about and provide an insight into what it would be like to join the firm.

 

[AJ]

Just cheekily reviving this thread with a q specific question: how do people generally write about a firms culture if they haven't met anyone from that firm? Im currently doing a TC application for a firm that stands out for its culture, but I'm struggling to provide 'evidence' for it, if that makes sense - was wondering if anyone had any tips when it comes to a firm's culture!

I’d be hesitant to talk about firm culture as a motivation for wanting to join a firm. Every firm seems to say their culture is great. There are lots of different things which make up the culture of a firm. And like you say finding personal evidence to back up your fit to that culture can be difficult. Likewise similar comments for diversity, innovation and pro bono.

Training is a good one to use. Firms do diverge quite a bit on this and you can use personal experiences as evidence. E.g Jones Day where’s there’s no seat structure/a free market system or a small firm where there’s more hands on training.

From experience, I found it best to clearly structure this answer. Two or three points, each with a reason why firm x and then evidence to back up. Don’t worry if the paragraphs are short

 

[Keren]

Just reviving this thread a year on! For the “why us?” question, I did the following:

1) I said that I am applying because I am interested in the firm’s Dispute Resolution practice area (1 of the 3 reasons).

2) I then explained why: the practice area stood out because of the firm’s expertise in Contentious Insolvency and IP disputes (there are too many types of disputes!!!!).

3) I then gave examples to back up why the firm’s expertise stood out: e.g interest in business/finance/studied IP as an LPC elective.

I wondered whether I should make (2) more general e.g not pick out its expertise in Insolvency and IP disputes? I also wondered whether (3) should be reasons as to why I am interested in the practice area in general, instead of why the firm’s expertise stood out?

Hope that makes sense thanks!

 

[D]

I've posted this in a few threads. I think the advice sits well with me and was provided to me by a Trainee at a firm I was doing mock-interview's with during a mini-scheme.

When conveying "Why X Firm", you can adopt the following format:

Work
What work does the firm do? What are their specialisms? What does this mean to you? Why does this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows your own interest in this area?

Business Model/Strategy
What is the firms business strategy? How do they perceive themselves? What is their position in the market? What does this mean to you? Why does this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows you prefer this particular model/strategy?

Training
How does the firm deliver their training? What is the nature of their TC? How does this differ to their competitor firms? What does this mean to you? Why does this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows this style of training would benefit you?

People
Who have you met at the firm? What was your interaction? What did you learn? Is this a truism? What did this mean to you? Why did this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows this this information will benefit you as a future employee?


The common theme throughout all of this is making a tangible connection to YOU. It is absolutely no good delivering statistics and awards in a speech. So, the firm are Band 1 in PE. But what does this mean to you? Well, likely that during your training you are going to get to work on the best deals in the market. But why is this important? Do you derive job-satisfaction frim this? Perhaps it's because you are going to work this the thought-leaders in this area. What does THAT mean to you? Will it enhance your training? You can see where this is going, but this is what you need to be doing with the points you make.

Hopefully, that helps!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Just reviving this thread a year on! For the “why us?” question, I did the following:

1) I said that I am applying because I am interested in the firm’s Dispute Resolution practice area (1 of the 3 reasons).

2) I then explained why: the practice area stood out because of the firm’s expertise in Contentious Insolvency and IP disputes (there are too many types of disputes!!!!).

3) I then gave examples to back up why the firm’s expertise stood out: e.g interest in business/finance/studied IP as an LPC elective.

I wondered whether I should make (2) more general e.g not pick out its expertise in Insolvency and IP disputes? I also wondered whether (3) should be reasons as to why I am interested in the practice area in general, instead of why the firm’s expertise stood out?

Hope that makes sense thanks!

It potentially sounds a little focused. Would you be doing more than 6 months in these areas as a trainee? If not, then it will be important to ensure it is balanced as there can be a question as to whether you will be interested in the majority of your training contract that would be outside of those areas.

Are there other things about the firm outside of practice area? Their approach to training/they way they allocate work/culture/environment/attitudes towards other matters (CSR/pro bono/charity)? It will be important to weave them in too, to bring in another dimension of why you will like the working environment, not just the job.

The advice above is spot on. You don’t have to cover everything mentioned (as something won’t be important to you) but it’s important to ensure you hint at why the firm is right for you on the basis of the day job, the longer term career, and why it culturally aligns to you.

 

[Keren]

It potentially sounds a little focused. Would you be doing more than 6 months in these areas as a trainee? If not, then it will be important to ensure it is balanced as there can be a question as to whether you will be interested in the majority of your training contract that would be outside of those areas.

Are there other things about the firm outside of practice area? Their approach to training/they way they allocate work/culture/environment/attitudes towards other matters (CSR/pro bono/charity)? It will be important to weave them in too, to bring in another dimension of why you will like the working environment, not just the job.

The advice above is spot on. You don’t have to cover everything mentioned (as something won’t be important to you) but it’s important to ensure you hint at why the firm is right for you on the basis of the day job, the longer term career, and why it culturally aligns to you.

Hi Jessica

Agree re advice above!

I’ll be doing 6 months in each seat. The thing I am struggling with is how to talk about a firm’s practice area without sounding to general. I picked out the firm’s work on Insolvency and IP disputes as that’s what made it’s practice stand out - but I agree that those reasons are too specific. I just feel like if I say “I am interested in firm x practice area because its reputation means I will have the opportunity to work with ...” it isn’t that personal to the firm. Probably over thought it, as per!

The firm has four core practice areas... the ones that interest me the most are Dispute Resolution and Property... so I thought I should speak about each of these separately in my application. I wondered whether it is okay to only speak about two of their specialisms/ is this this is actually necessary/ or if I could just speak about the main practice area that interests me without sounding too focused... I don’t know!

I then also spoke about the firm’s CSR/charity work (aligns with my interests as I do a lot of work for my community/charity etc etc).

Thanks for your time!

 

[Keren]

I've posted this in a few threads. I think the advice sits well with me and was provided to me by a Trainee at a firm I was doing mock-interview's with during a mini-scheme.

When conveying "Why X Firm", you can adopt the following format:

Work
What work does the firm do? What are their specialisms? What does this mean to you? Why does this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows your own interest in this area?

Business Model/Strategy
What is the firms business strategy? How do they perceive themselves? What is their position in the market? What does this mean to you? Why does this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows you prefer this particular model/strategy?

Training
How does the firm deliver their training? What is the nature of their TC? How does this differ to their competitor firms? What does this mean to you? Why does this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows this style of training would benefit you?

People
Who have you met at the firm? What was your interaction? What did you learn? Is this a truism? What did this mean to you? Why did this interest you? What evidence do you have that shows this this information will benefit you as a future employee?


The common theme throughout all of this is making a tangible connection to YOU. It is absolutely no good delivering statistics and awards in a speech. So, the firm are Band 1 in PE. But what does this mean to you? Well, likely that during your training you are going to get to work on the best deals in the market. But why is this important? Do you derive job-satisfaction frim this? Perhaps it's because you are going to work this the thought-leaders in this area. What does THAT mean to you? Will it enhance your training? You can see where this is going, but this is what you need to be doing with the points you make.

Hopefully, that helps!

Thank you, that’s super help

Quick question if you don’t mind... how would you approach talking about the areas the firm specialises in? E.g. would you pick out one area say Commercial Property (the firm has four specialist areas) then speak about that without mentioning their other areas?

 

[S87]

Hi Jessica

Agree re advice above!

I’ll be doing 6 months in each seat. The thing I am struggling with is how to talk about a firm’s practice area without sounding to general. I picked out the firm’s work on Insolvency and IP disputes as that’s what made it’s practice stand out - but I agree that those reasons are too specific. I just feel like if I say “I am interested in firm x practice area because its reputation means I will have the opportunity to work with ...” it isn’t that personal to the firm. Probably over thought it, as per!

The firm has four core practice areas... the ones that interest me the most are Dispute Resolution and Property... so I thought I should speak about each of these separately in my application. I wondered whether it is okay to only speak about two of their specialisms/ is this this is actually necessary/ or if I could just speak about the main practice area that interests me without sounding too focused... I don’t know!

I then also spoke about the firm’s CSR/charity work (aligns with my interests as I do a lot of work for my community/charity etc etc).

Thanks for your time!

So I know the struggle and it can feel overwhelming.

However, allow me to say something, I feel that you could adopt a different approach.

For example, I applied to a a firm very strong in Media and family law. I used 3 different approaches:
1) Media: I spoke about my first legal unpaid work experience where I analysed the US flexible forms of copyright and compared against the system in my country where copyright is notoriously restrictive. I mentioned what i liked and how the Legal Tier 1 ranking in media could benefit me but also what I could bring to the firm given my work experience and my studies in IP law. Plus,I also mentioned their legal lateral hire of a strong media new partner and what he is going to bring. He works with Stormzy and Jesse Glynne (sorry cannot remember how to spell her surname) so new clients..more work and more money.
2) Family law: I spoke about my activism for gay rights and how during university I also participated in a campaign for the Referendum on fertility laws and argued against the no as it discriminated against women. Then linked my activism to the firm's work on fertility and gay couples.
3) Spoke about the firm's work on diversity and their inclusive culture. As a lesbian black woman is important to work in a firm's that implements an inclusive environment where i can be myself.

It might not be perfect but this is a start!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi Jessica

Agree re advice above!

I’ll be doing 6 months in each seat. The thing I am struggling with is how to talk about a firm’s practice area without sounding to general. I picked out the firm’s work on Insolvency and IP disputes as that’s what made it’s practice stand out - but I agree that those reasons are too specific. I just feel like if I say “I am interested in firm x practice area because its reputation means I will have the opportunity to work with ...” it isn’t that personal to the firm. Probably over thought it, as per!

The firm has four core practice areas... the ones that interest me the most are Dispute Resolution and Property... so I thought I should speak about each of these separately in my application. I wondered whether it is okay to only speak about two of their specialisms/ is this this is actually necessary/ or if I could just speak about the main practice area that interests me without sounding too focused... I don’t know!

I then also spoke about the firm’s CSR/charity work (aligns with my interests as I do a lot of work for my community/charity etc etc).

Thanks for your time!

Two specialisms is fine - you are likely to spend at least half (if not more) in these areas or in departments that link to them. Your earlier post made no reference to property though and that is why I thought it was a bit too focused. It is fine to talk about reputation/who you will work with, but you need to explain why that is important to you/what it will provide you with. The firm knows it has a good reputation and that you would work with X people, so you are only telling them something they already know if you only go to that level.

You have to get a balance to everything in your answer - it needs to sound like you are interested in the whole training contract (and the things around it) and not just one six month seat in DR.