Hi all,
I know people like to use recent deals and a firm's clients as specific reasons for being interested in a firm but I was wondering how I would go about doing this.
With regard to deals and cases, I'm concerned about expressing interest in a case but coming across like my interest seems a bit arbitrary or overly generic.
Also, is it preferable to mention recent deals compared to other factors like e.g. diversity or flat hierarchy even if you could back the latter two up with specific references/examples?
Thanks!
Great questions.
I review many applications where a student has tried to refer to a recent deal or a client to back up their reasons for applying. Most of the time, the link between the point and evidence is tenuous, which means it doesn't read as genuine. This ends up hurting more than helping their application.
If you want to mention a deal or a client, that's fine, but you need to leave enough space to make the point. For example, if you were to use a deal, you should be using specific information to explain
why it interests you, including information about how the law firm was involved and how that links to your interest in the firm. The emphasis is on the why here: don't simply tell the firm what happened. Explain which aspects you found interesting.
Perhaps, for example, you want to write about the time when a law firm helped a UK company issue a bond to US investors. It wouldn't be enough to say you liked the "international scope" of the deal, or that it shows the law firm has a "leading banking team". That's far too generic. It doesn't tell me why you are applying, nor why you are applying to that particular firm over all the other law firms with good banking teams.
Instead, you should ask yourself: What's special about this deal? What does this deal tell you about the law firm?
Let's try a better answer. You note the law firm fielded a team of US and UK banking lawyers to advise the UK company. You say that this backs up your broader point -- that the law firm is one of only a handful of transatlantic law firms. This makes you want to apply because you have an interest in finance-related work. And you want to work at this law firm, in particular, because its reach in New York and London means it is uniquely positioned to advise on the most complex, high-value finance work on both sides of the pond.
Now, there are other things you could have said. But, the point is, you're not trying to name drop an arbitrary deal or client. Nor are you mentioning it for the sake of showing you have read about the law firm. Instead, it's being used to affirm the broader point you are making about your reasons for applying. This comes across as far more genuine.
Kazam is right. In his guide, Ben does suggest students should not to refer to deals or awards. But, I believe Ben is saying this as a warning that you should not just tell a law firm about itself or for the sake of showing off your knowledge of the firm. I'm of the view that it's fine to mention these things as evidence of a point you are making, rather than as the point itself.
Finally, to answer your last question, it partly depends on how you obtained your information. I always value information you have obtained by meeting a law firm the highest. It comes across as genuine and shows you have gone away to meet the law firm.
Beyond that, I don't really have a preference. You definitely do not need to mention a deal to give a convincing answer to why you are applying to a law firm. So, by all means, if you are interested in a law firm because of its efforts in diversity, then you should mention it.
