Streamlining applications to Law firms

[RB]

Hi everyone!

Just in preparation for the upcoming cycle of VS/TC's, I've just been doing some research into which law firms I'd potentially want to apply to. I know that a lot of law firms put a lot of emphasis on applicants knowing the strengths of the firm you're applying to, and in my experience, they ask what other law firms you've applied to. So for this cycle, I'm just making sure that the law firms that I've applied to are similar (ish) in terms of their practice areas and global reach - does anyone know if this is the right approach to take in choosing which law firms to apply to?

I'm interested in practicing corporate law but I do want to train at a firm with a broad practice just so I don't pigeonhole myself into a practice area early on. Of course, culture and training and retention rates, etc are things I'm bearing in mind but I wanted to ask if the law firms that I'm thinking of applying to below seem kind of or somewhat streamlined?

1. Hogan Lovells
2. Allen & Overy
3. Linklaters
4. Ashurst
5. Norton Rose Fulbright
6. Baker Mckenzie
7. Simmons & Simmons

I've also been thinking about applying to smaller, mid-sized firms where competition is not as strong, but again I'm not sure if this is the right approach to take since competition for TC's in general are fierce. I was thinking about the below where practice areas are slightly more specialised/niche but still have a broad practice:

1. Stephenson Harwood
2. Addleshaw Goddard
3. Eversheds
4. Pinsent Masons

Thanks in advance!

 

[Romiras]

Hi everyone!

Just in preparation for the upcoming cycle of VS/TC's, I've just been doing some research into which law firms I'd potentially want to apply to. I know that a lot of law firms put a lot of emphasis on applicants knowing the strengths of the firm you're applying to, and in my experience, they ask what other law firms you've applied to. So for this cycle, I'm just making sure that the law firms that I've applied to are similar (ish) in terms of their practice areas and global reach - does anyone know if this is the right approach to take in choosing which law firms to apply to?

I've been asked that question before. I applied to A&O, CC, S&M, TS, Gibson Dunn, Latham, NRF, HL, HSF, White & Case, etc. Point being, many of these firms are 'similar', but are also fundamentally different. You could typify the above by clients, practice strength, international vs regional, practice focus, business model, etc. You just need to be able to explain it - it doesn't all have to make sense. I was asked this explicitly at my Gibson Dunn interview and I received an offer, despite the variety of firms I had in my application list.

I'm interested in practicing corporate law but I do want to train at a firm with a broad practice just so I don't pigeonhole myself into a practice area early on. Of course, culture and training and retention rates, etc are things I'm bearing in mind but I wanted to ask if the law firms that I'm thinking of applying to below seem kind of or somewhat streamlined?

1. Hogan Lovells
2. Allen & Overy
3. Linklaters
4. Ashurst
5. Norton Rose Fulbright
6. Baker Mckenzie
7. Simmons & Simmons

You should be able to tell with light research whether these firms are 'streamlined' (presumably you mean their focus is narrow). In any case, the above firms are all full service law firms with many different practice groups. From your bread and butter Corporate, Finance, Litigation to the more specialist groups like TPE.

You could throw in a few more firms in there: Slaughter & May, Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith Freehills, Macfarlanes, Travers Smith, etc.

I've also been thinking about applying to smaller, mid-sized firms where competition is not as strong, but again I'm not sure if this is the right approach to take since competition for TC's in general are fierce. I was thinking about the below where practice areas are slightly more specialised/niche but still have a broad practice:

1. Stephenson Harwood
2. Addleshaw Goddard
3. Eversheds
4. Pinsent Masons

Honestly - these firms will be competitive too. You should be applying for the right reasons (and thus subscribe to what differentiates these firms compared to the ones you've listed above). These firms are also 'similar' to the firms you've listed above, in the sense that they certainly are not 'streamlined'. However, if you think it'll be easier for you to obtain a TC by applying to these firms, and that's your bottom line concern, then you should go for it.

Thanks in advance!

Comments in red.

 

[amb98]

Hi everyone!

Just in preparation for the upcoming cycle of VS/TC's, I've just been doing some research into which law firms I'd potentially want to apply to. I know that a lot of law firms put a lot of emphasis on applicants knowing the strengths of the firm you're applying to, and in my experience, they ask what other law firms you've applied to. So for this cycle, I'm just making sure that the law firms that I've applied to are similar (ish) in terms of their practice areas and global reach - does anyone know if this is the right approach to take in choosing which law firms to apply to?

I'm interested in practicing corporate law but I do want to train at a firm with a broad practice just so I don't pigeonhole myself into a practice area early on. Of course, culture and training and retention rates, etc are things I'm bearing in mind but I wanted to ask if the law firms that I'm thinking of applying to below seem kind of or somewhat streamlined?

1. Hogan Lovells
2. Allen & Overy
3. Linklaters
4. Ashurst
5. Norton Rose Fulbright
6. Baker Mckenzie
7. Simmons & Simmons

I've also been thinking about applying to smaller, mid-sized firms where competition is not as strong, but again I'm not sure if this is the right approach to take since competition for TC's in general are fierce. I was thinking about the below where practice areas are slightly more specialised/niche but still have a broad practice:

1. Stephenson Harwood
2. Addleshaw Goddard
3. Eversheds
4. Pinsent Masons

Thanks in advance!

Given your interest in corporate law, would definitely consider adding some other well regarded corporate firms to your list such as Macfarlanes and Travers Smith.

 

[Asmee DC]

Hi everyone!

Just in preparation for the upcoming cycle of VS/TC's, I've just been doing some research into which law firms I'd potentially want to apply to. I know that a lot of law firms put a lot of emphasis on applicants knowing the strengths of the firm you're applying to, and in my experience, they ask what other law firms you've applied to. So for this cycle, I'm just making sure that the law firms that I've applied to are similar (ish) in terms of their practice areas and global reach - does anyone know if this is the right approach to take in choosing which law firms to apply to?

I'm interested in practicing corporate law but I do want to train at a firm with a broad practice just so I don't pigeonhole myself into a practice area early on. Of course, culture and training and retention rates, etc are things I'm bearing in mind but I wanted to ask if the law firms that I'm thinking of applying to below seem kind of or somewhat streamlined?

1. Hogan Lovells
2. Allen & Overy
3. Linklaters
4. Ashurst
5. Norton Rose Fulbright
6. Baker Mckenzie
7. Simmons & Simmons

I've also been thinking about applying to smaller, mid-sized firms where competition is not as strong, but again I'm not sure if this is the right approach to take since competition for TC's in general are fierce. I was thinking about the below where practice areas are slightly more specialised/niche but still have a broad practice:

1. Stephenson Harwood
2. Addleshaw Goddard
3. Eversheds
4. Pinsent Masons

Thanks in advance!

That's a really good list so far, and I completely agree with the above replies as well. I would suggest reflecting upon your own values (aside from practice areas), on where you truly want to end up. Do you want to work for a firm that doesn't have much of a work/life balance and that doesn't bother you? Or do you want to work for a firm that has a work/life balance because you truly value that? Other things to consider more specifically would be regarding the application process. Most of the firms listed above require psychometric testing, so if you're not particularly strong in that area then consider firms that do not require that step such as Eversheds.

It's pretty early on as you are just starting to write the applications, but I also suggest reaching out to future trainees or trainees at those firms on LinkedIn. You'd be surprised as to the number of people who reply and give their opinions/suggestions. Ask them why they chose to train there, why they like that firm, etc and although the answer may be a little biased it can still help you get a sense of the firm's culture/work! Hope this helps

 

[RB]

Sorry I think streamlining might have been a bad word choice of describing what I meant! Essentially, I'm just trying to narrow the list of firms down to firms that are similar in the sense that they have a good corporate department but at the same time also have strengths in other areas, like Hogan Lovells who is strong in litigation and IP as well, rather than applying to firms which may have a strong focus on finance/corporate areas and having other departments as support functions.

Regardless though, thank you that was super helpful!

Comments in red.

 

[Romiras]

Sorry I think streamlining might have been a bad word choice of describing what I meant! Essentially, I'm just trying to narrow the list of firms down to firms that are similar in the sense that they have a good corporate department but at the same time also have strengths in other areas, like Hogan Lovells who is strong in litigation and IP as well, rather than applying to firms which may have a strong focus on finance/corporate areas and having other departments as support functions.

Regardless though, thank you that was super helpful!

But by definition a lot of firms fit the bill of "a strong focus on finance/ corporate areas and having other departments as support functions". Hogan lovells, Allen & Overy, and a whole other bunch of firms operate precisely like that. Tax, Employment, Pensions, Antitrust are all, by nature, advisory and thus primarily play a specialist / support role.

 

[RB]

But by definition a lot of firms fit the bill of "a strong focus on finance/ corporate areas and having other departments as support functions". Hogan lovells, Allen & Overy, and a whole other bunch of firms operate precisely like that. Tax, Employment, Pensions, Antitrust are all, by nature, advisory and thus primarily play a specialist / support role.

Yeah I see what you mean. I might be wrong but I would think that the firms that I've listed don't see finance or their corporate departments as their only main driver and have other very strong departments that don't only serve as support functions. Like Hogan Lovells as I mentioned above, I don't think that they would see their IP or litigation departments as mere support functions.

 

[Romiras]

Yeah I see what you mean. I might be wrong but I would think that the firms that I've listed don't see finance or their corporate departments as their only main driver and have other very strong departments that don't only serve as support functions. Like Hogan Lovells as I mentioned above, I don't think that they would see their IP or litigation departments as mere support functions.

Very few firms see IP as their main driver. You're right on litigation, but a lot of firms see their disputes practice as important (although perhaps less profitable as compared to Corp/Fin). I guess the point is, if you're in an interview and you justify that HL is similar to Baker McKenzie or Norton Rose Fulbright, or that Slaughter and May (which equally has a strong disputes, corporate and finance practice) could be lumped into the same group as the other firms, you will likely find yourself in a tough spot. I think you'll need to find a more nuanced approach in terms of your answer to that particular question, one that goes beyond seeing firms that are 'streamlined', as you have clarified, but rather as firms that have specific market or sector focuses.

 

[RB]

That’s a fair point, I agree.

I guess I’m worried that firms may not be fully convinced with my motivations in working for them if I‘ve applied to a variety of firms. So rather than looking at these firms at such a high level, (if this question ever comes up at an interview) would you suggest just explaining how you understand the differences in the firms you’ve applied to but ultimately why you still want to work for that particular firm?

On a another but similar ish note, if you don’t mind helping again! I understand that firms are quite dissimilar but I am having a pretty tough time understanding who their competitors are since full-service law firms, especially the magic circle or even silver circle firms are often top tier for many different areas. That said, do law firms generally have one or two competitors who do very similar work across the board or do they have different competitors based on each of their strong practice areas?

Thanks again for your insight!

Very few firms see IP as their main driver. You're right on litigation, but a lot of firms see their disputes practice as important (although perhaps less profitable as compared to Corp/Fin). I guess the point is, if you're in an interview and you justify that HL is similar to Baker McKenzie or Norton Rose Fulbright, or that Slaughter and May (which equally has a strong disputes, corporate and finance practice) could be lumped into the same group as the other firms, you will likely find yourself in a tough spot. I think you'll need to find a more nuance approach in terms of your answer to that particular question, one that goes beyond seeing firms that are 'streamlined', as you have clarified, but rather as firms that have specific market or sector focuses.

 

[Romiras]

That’s a fair point, I agree.

I guess I’m worried that firms may not be fully convinced with my motivations in working for them if I‘ve applied to a variety of firms. So rather than looking at these firms at such a high level, (if this question ever comes up at an interview) would you suggest just explaining how you understand the differences in the firms you’ve applied to but ultimately why you still want to work for that particular firm?

On a another but similar ish note, if you don’t mind helping again! I understand that firms are quite dissimilar but I am having a pretty tough time understanding who their competitors are since full-service law firms, especially the magic circle or even silver circle firms are often top tier for many different areas. That said, do law firms generally have one or two competitors who do very similar work across the board or do they have different competitors based on each of their strong practice areas?

Thanks again for your insight!

There must be an underlying interest as to why you're applying to those firms - especially if they appear to be a diverse range. Just be honest and genuine. Otherwise, it's okay to omit some firms to fit your narrative.

Regarding competition / competitors - I think that's a can of worms that doesn't need opening. It's difficult because certain firms work across certain firms, but it really depends on practice group. For example, CC may work across A&O for finance, a lot, but never really see them on the other side when doing PE or M&A work. I do not think you'll be asked this question. I also think that you will not be expected to have a in depth understanding of the legal market (because that's unreasonable). I think you should just focus on your motivations, be it personal or not, rather than the market's reason for why you might want to apply to a cluster of firms.

 

[RB]

There must be an underlying interest as to why you're applying to those firms - especially if they appear to be a diverse range. Just be honest and genuine. Otherwise, it's okay to omit some firms to fit your narrative.

Regarding competition / competitors - I think that's a can of worms that doesn't need opening. It's difficult because certain firms work across certain firms, but it really depends on practice group. For example, CC may work across A&O for finance, a lot, but never really see them on the other side when doing PE or M&A work. I do not think you'll be asked this question. I also think that you will not be expected to have a in depth understanding of the legal market (because that's unreasonable). I think you should just focus on your motivations, be it personal or not, rather than the market's reason for why you might want to apply to a cluster of firms.

Thank you for taking your time and explaining everything to me - I really appreciate it!