-
Build your commercial awareness from scratch in 1 month! Use the coupon code 'FORUM' at checkout for £30 off.
TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2024-5
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
It’s quite a big talent pool though! Being a graduate in full time work doesn’t preclude you from doing a vac scheme in all cases (as I can personally attest to), nor does being an international student.
It obviously sucks when your opportunities are reduced by virtue of the fact that you can’t do a vac scheme but it’s a perfectly rational position for a firm to take when all methods of recruitment have various pros and cons to be balanced
Its a fine route if its one* way of being recruited. If it is the only* way then I really wouldn’t agree.
Being in full-time employment precludes many many people from doing a vac scheme. Taking 2-3 weeks off to do a paid internship with another employer may not fly over well with most* bosses. All after you've taken day(s) off to interview and attend assessment centers as well. Not to mention you are literally not guaranteed a job, so you risk using all you annual leave and/or getting fired without a guarantee for employment.
It’s unacceptable for a firm to preach social mobility and DEI while this is their only* recruitment method.
The automatic SJT and Critical Thinking test does not.
But the next round does!
has anyone gotten an invite to the trainee simulation for Mayer brown yet? Only got the feedback report but nothing after
Jessica Booker
Legendary Member
TCLA Moderator
Gold Member
Graduate Recruitment
Premium Member
Forum Team
- Aug 1, 2019
- 15,046
- 20,934
Just to add into the conversation about vacation schemes and the investment into training, law is a complete anomaly compared to any other office based job that the training is upfront and before someone starts a job. The training costs can easily be £70k before the individual even starts on their first day. You just don't see this upfront cost in other professional services or regulated industries.
Most other industries are providing training on the job and the costs are nowhere near as high where they don't need to provide maintenance grants. However, these graduate programmes are also ruthless in getting rid of graduates within the first 6-12 months if they don't pass professional qualifications or are not performing on the job. Historically law firms haven't had that luxury and had to make a two year commitment (although the SQE has changed that), making them very risk adverse.
From my experience, I am very aware that vacation schemes generally limit diversity on a number of levels and that is why I encourage firms to have more short insight programmes (e.g. 1-3 day programmes) as an alternative for those who cannot do vacation schemes. But I also see why firms use vacation schemes so heavily to reduce the risk of hiring the wrong person - they aren't fool-proof, but they are far less fool-proof that relying on a 2-3 hours of assessments.
Most other industries are providing training on the job and the costs are nowhere near as high where they don't need to provide maintenance grants. However, these graduate programmes are also ruthless in getting rid of graduates within the first 6-12 months if they don't pass professional qualifications or are not performing on the job. Historically law firms haven't had that luxury and had to make a two year commitment (although the SQE has changed that), making them very risk adverse.
From my experience, I am very aware that vacation schemes generally limit diversity on a number of levels and that is why I encourage firms to have more short insight programmes (e.g. 1-3 day programmes) as an alternative for those who cannot do vacation schemes. But I also see why firms use vacation schemes so heavily to reduce the risk of hiring the wrong person - they aren't fool-proof, but they are far less fool-proof that relying on a 2-3 hours of assessments.
I appreciate your opinion but I personally don’t believe it’s an all-or-nothing thing. I think firms can still have solid records on DEI and social mobility notwithstanding their de facto exclusion of some graduates and career changers
I’m gonna end it here and respectfully agree to disagree. I guess my overall point would be that graduate recruitment is one big balancing act for firms of rigour, accessibility, resources etc. and it’s nigh-on impossible to find a perfect balance
I got incisive as my weakness which I can imagine is probably the worst thing you can get a weakness in. I am wondering if the weaknesses are based off of the SJ type question or if it was the assessment as whole including critical thinking. Anyways I am not too optimistic about those results.
I was told by a partner that you essentially can’t get rid of a bad trainee which is why they do Vac Schemes. They said that there are many candidates who are very impressive on paper but lack certain soft skills that are necessary, or do not fit in well with the firm for whatever reason. Firms invest a lot into trainees and a 2/3 week vacation scheme is a good way of weeding out applicants who aren’t a good fit before committing to hiring them for the full 2 year traineeship.
I do fully agree it is difficult to complete with full-time employment though! I have completed two VS and the first one had only one graduate / career changer and the rest were current students. The second VS I completed (and now have an offer for) had about a 50/50 mix of students and graduates. Not sure if it was intentional or not
From previous cycles, does anyone know whether there is any truth to Baker’s portal changing their Anonimity status from details locked to not anonymous being a signal that your app has been viewed/decided on?
I don't think I have seen anyone progress post assessment for the direct TC route.
I absolutely see why they would like to test out some people before they hire them - especially when they’re so young with little experience or industry exposure. But having this as the only recruitment method is a big F U to a very large pool of candidates who cannot take 2-3 weeks off to do this (or are not allowed to due to visa restrictions).
It’s also interesting (from my years in the industry) to note that the people who get the vac schemes almost always also get the TC offer. Which means that the assessment centre, considered alone, is actually a good indicator for who would make a successful trainee…
I might be wrong here, but wouldn’t the offer of a TC to those that did the VS, be based on the fact they did the VS and not based on their AC performance? I don’t think city law firms (who invest at least £100k in training) would be able to make a decision solely off of an AC. In the instance where firms have a DTC route, they normally seek substantial experience to make up for the fact they aren’t assessing you via a traditional VS. That’s why they can rely on just an AC. These routes are closed off to a lot of people as well (especially those that are socially mobile or live in the regions and have less access to opportunities such as legal work experiences in the city). 🥲
Law firms will want to see how well someone can do the job (on the job). The work of a trainee associate in a city law firm is different and requires a specific set of skills, which can only be assessed when tested in the workplace itself. Besides, how can we as applicants know whether a firm is truly the right one for us, if we haven’t had the chance to assess the firm via a VS? I don’t think I’d know whether any firm would suit me solely through a few interviews and assessments. A two year TC (with the aim of staying on as an NQ) is a significant investment and commitment for both parties, so I would think a VS route is fair game. A VS allows candidates to get a feel for the firm’s culture and meet its current associates and partners (who would be future colleagues). 🙂
These are just my thoughts. I don’t think firms should only have a VS route or only a DTC route. Ideally there should be both options. I just think either way, it’s a competitive process and there will almost always be a large talent pool that isn’t given a TC. That’s a part of how this whole thing works unfortunately. I think firms need to find a balance between ensuring they recruit the best talent but also making sure it has fair routes into entering in the first place (so as to not exclude anyone). I just don’t think it’s an all or nothing approach; firms can be committed to DEI and social mobility whilst also having a process that might result in some people being unable to get a TC (as @Broadwater has also mentioned in a previous comment). 🙂
Law firms will want to see how well someone can do the job (on the job). The work of a trainee associate in a city law firm is different and requires a specific set of skills, which can only be assessed when tested in the workplace itself. Besides, how can we as applicants know whether a firm is truly the right one for us, if we haven’t had the chance to assess the firm via a VS? I don’t think I’d know whether any firm would suit me solely through a few interviews and assessments. A two year TC (with the aim of staying on as an NQ) is a significant investment and commitment for both parties, so I would think a VS route is fair game. A VS allows candidates to get a feel for the firm’s culture and meet its current associates and partners (who would be future colleagues). 🙂
These are just my thoughts. I don’t think firms should only have a VS route or only a DTC route. Ideally there should be both options. I just think either way, it’s a competitive process and there will almost always be a large talent pool that isn’t given a TC. That’s a part of how this whole thing works unfortunately. I think firms need to find a balance between ensuring they recruit the best talent but also making sure it has fair routes into entering in the first place (so as to not exclude anyone). I just don’t think it’s an all or nothing approach; firms can be committed to DEI and social mobility whilst also having a process that might result in some people being unable to get a TC (as @Broadwater has also mentioned in a previous comment). 🙂
Last edited:
I said I noted that most vac schemers get the TC offer, and the vac scheme is obtained by an AC, so an AC is actually a solid indicator of whether someone would make it as a trainee at the firm. Ultimately for VSers the vac scheme is what determines is they get the TC offer - just anecdotally have noticed in the firm(s) ive worked at that most Vac Schemers do get the TC offer (literally only 2-4 out of per cohort 20 dont) so the AC is a solid indicator that they are a good fit if considering alone.
As for DTC apps, its not always the case that most candidates are mature/experienced . Many are students who cant do a vac scheme or dont want to do one, and they still get offers despite not having as much experience as mature candidates.
Yeah, I do see both sides 😕
I think honestly there is a huge element of luck when it gets to VS interview /AC stage. Most /all candidates are probably very impressive with similar grades, experience, soft skills, etc.
It probably just depends on whether the firm give out more vac places than training contracts.
I don’t think there are many city law firms that offer TC’s to majority of the candidates on the VS. In most cases, I think that the VS to TC conversion rate is between 25-50%. Some firms, such as the Magic Circle, only recruit 1/2 of their trainees from the VS. The rest of its trainees are recruited from the DTC route. As a result, they probably only have very limited VS spaces anyway, so they can afford to have a higher conversion rate. Other firms however, don’t recruit as many trainees as the MC firms do.
For example, White & Case recruit 50 trainees a year. The firm has 3 VS and for each one there are 25 places (75 in total). To my knowledge, White & Case offers TC to around 50% of its VS candidates, but as a % of the TC offers available, it’s almost 80%! This leaves 10 slots open for DTC. However, of the 75-80 VS candidates, 35-40 don’t convert into a TC. It just appears that most people who do the VS receive the TC offer. It’s a similar situation with Hogan Lovells, who also offer 3 VS in each application cycle.
In reality, there is only ever a 1-3% chance of securing a TC with top city firms that receive between 1,000 to 5,000 applications for between 5-100 TC spaces. In my White & Case example, the firm gets almost 5,000 applications (same with Hogan Lovells), but both firms only offer up to 50 TC’s. For firms that offer fewer TC’s but receive lots of applications, it’s very risky to offer the bulk of TC’s via the DTC route (hence why most US firms that recruit between 5-20 trainees rely on their VS as the sole method of recruiting).
I think it’s better to broaden your choices of firms and focus on firms that offer the DTC route in addition to the VS route. Once you become an NQ, you can always laterally move to the firm you wanted to work for originally (that probably doesn’t have the DTC route). I just think firms are always going to be extra cautious about offering TC’s because it’s such fierce competition. They want to ensure they recruit the best talent in the market.
For example, White & Case recruit 50 trainees a year. The firm has 3 VS and for each one there are 25 places (75 in total). To my knowledge, White & Case offers TC to around 50% of its VS candidates, but as a % of the TC offers available, it’s almost 80%! This leaves 10 slots open for DTC. However, of the 75-80 VS candidates, 35-40 don’t convert into a TC. It just appears that most people who do the VS receive the TC offer. It’s a similar situation with Hogan Lovells, who also offer 3 VS in each application cycle.
In reality, there is only ever a 1-3% chance of securing a TC with top city firms that receive between 1,000 to 5,000 applications for between 5-100 TC spaces. In my White & Case example, the firm gets almost 5,000 applications (same with Hogan Lovells), but both firms only offer up to 50 TC’s. For firms that offer fewer TC’s but receive lots of applications, it’s very risky to offer the bulk of TC’s via the DTC route (hence why most US firms that recruit between 5-20 trainees rely on their VS as the sole method of recruiting).
I think it’s better to broaden your choices of firms and focus on firms that offer the DTC route in addition to the VS route. Once you become an NQ, you can always laterally move to the firm you wanted to work for originally (that probably doesn’t have the DTC route). I just think firms are always going to be extra cautious about offering TC’s because it’s such fierce competition. They want to ensure they recruit the best talent in the market.
Last edited:
- Sep 7, 2024
- 331
- 706
Hiya @desperateTCseeker1998
King & Spalding (K&S) is definitely one of those firms that's a bit trickier to research, but I've tried to put together some important bits of information together for you here.
The firm's London office is primarily known for its litigation and disputes strengths. You can see this primarily in their rankings on Legal 500 and Chambers UK. That being said, the London office has made a noticeable push on the transactional side in recent years. Over the last year alone, they've made several prominent hires in finance and corporate, and you can learn more about these hires here and here. If you're interested in construction and energy work, as well, the firm may be particularly appealing to you. The firm has also made some notable hires in terms of its disputes practice. In February 2024, Sir Max Hill KC, formerly the director of public prosecutions, joined K&S, making it the only US firm with four London-based KCs.
In terms of recent work, you may want to look into the following:
- In London, partners William Charnley and Marcus Young acted for Tradeshi Holdings on its JV with HSBC, which raised nearly $70m to scale up its network.
- On the contentious side, the firm advised Colombian oil refinery Reficar on the UK aspects of its high-profile litigation following an award of $1bn in actual damages through arbitration.
- K&S also represented the Republic of Turkey in an ICC arbitration filed by the Government of Iraq, a significant case touching on both private and public international law.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked