TCLA General Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[PirateShip]

A bracelet is fine (provided it’s not a huge metal-studded one or something 😝). Most firms are business casual - chinos, a button-up shirt and a nice sweater are fine most days. For any client facing work a full suit will still be necessary.

Good to hear. I’m a bit of a peacock so have a few pieces of jewelry I’m rather fond of 😜

I wouldn’t wear any of them in a formal setting, but would be nice to not have to completely abandon them to the weekend.

 

[koshka]

Of course it’s up to the firm, sometimes they don’t have the space to rearrange but often firms are very accommodating! You have to be mindful that they may not be able to move your interview slot but just asking will absolutely not damage your chances! Law firms (and grad rec) are human, they understand that things pop up and people will have things that means they cannot attend so I wouldn’t worry if I were you! Also I doubt that moving it to a a lot later in the day or even in the week will damage your chances to get a VS! I hope you hear back with positive news!

Thank you so much for ur reply is v reassuring! I really hope they will be able to accommodate especially as the interview is over zoom. I am just so worried I will have blown my last chance this cycle especially as this is the furthest I've got

 

[AvniD]

Good to hear. I’m a bit of a peacock so have a few pieces of jewelry I’m rather fond of 😜

I wouldn’t wear any of them in a formal setting, but would be nice to not have to completely abandon them to the weekend.

Go right ahead- they make you 'you' and will help you feel confident on the day of. Wishing you the best!

 

[koshka]

Thank you so much for ur reply is v reassuring! I really hope they will be able to accommodate especially as the interview is over zoom. I am just so worried I will have blown my last chance this cycle especially as this is the furthest I've got

EDIT: They have not replied to my email yet but I am looking at trying to get a different flight although it is pretty expensive. Should I wait for their response and then get the new flight if they cant offer me a different slot, or should I bite the bullet and email them again saying I can make myself available?

 

[Jessica Booker]

I wanted to share some (commercial) joy and post my favourite FT article to make someone else’s day. And for all those sitting exams I recommend getting Japanese kitkats for good luck!

How the KitKat went global
https://on.ft.com/367fkH4

I now need to stock up on Kitkats while I am staying overnight in a motorway Travelodge....

(me once I have.....)

 

[Jessica Booker]

I imagine this depends on the firm, but these days how conservative are firms in regards to dress? Would something like a bracelet be a no-no?

Statement bracelets and necklaces tend to be fine - you'll see them a lot around the offices (I find anyway!).

Good way to brighten up a dull outfit/add some personality to otherwise conservative clothing.

 

[thirdtimelucky]

I now need to stock up on Kitkats while I am staying overnight in a motorway Travelodge....

(me once I have.....)

I found my mum's stash of chocolate and it was a well deserved treat! If you can, get yourself some Japanese kit kats as they are incredible! Would 100% recommend buying the strawberry ones (and what's better you can feel good about yourself because they're mini)!

 

[NaimK]

Does anyone know the best way to get a paralegal role without having previous legal experience? I want to ultimately work as a solicitor at an international firm in London, so I'm also wary of not applying for roles that could hurt my long-term chances e.g. paralegal in a High St. firm.

I am trying to keep my routes to qualification open, and under the new SQE route, I would need 2 years QWE. How could I get QWE without prior LEGAL experience? I do have commercial experience.

Any insight would be appreciated.

 

[TC fiend]

Does anyone know the best way to get a paralegal role without having previous legal experience? I want to ultimately work as a solicitor at an international firm in London, so I'm also wary of not applying for roles that could hurt my long-term chances e.g. paralegal in a High St. firm.

I am trying to keep my routes to qualification open, and under the new SQE route, I would need 2 years QWE. How could I get QWE without prior LEGAL experience? I do have commercial experience.

Any insight would be appreciated.

If you’ve got any language skills I’d highly recommend leveraging those. There are often short-term paralegal gigs available to help with foreign language discovery. From there it is easier to move to more permanent legal roles.

There’s also a number of very good recruiters I’d recommend reaching out to via LinkedIn. Some that come to mind are Ryder Reid, Montresor Legal, The Law Support Group, etc.

Re QWE, the SRA has compiled a list of key competencies that you need to prove in order for the QWE to be recognized. It has to involve “experience of providing legal services which enables an individual to develop some or all of the competencies outlined in the Statement of Solicitor Competence”. If you manage to secure a legal role, you need to then have a chat with your employer to see whether your role fulfills those competencies AND whether your employer is a solicitor who is willing to sign off on that experience.

Good luck!!

 

[shootingstar]

Hi everyone I was wondering does anyone know whether Latham has the same recruitment process for both VS and direct TC? Thank you so much!

 

[thirdtimelucky]

Does anyone know how long BCLP’s first round interview is?

 

[djqb]

Hi everyone I was wondering does anyone know whether Latham has the same recruitment process for both VS and direct TC? Thank you so much!

Hi there - yeah it's the same as the VS

Application ➡ Video Interview ➡ Assessment Centre ➡ Offer

 

[NaimK]

If you’ve got any language skills I’d highly recommend leveraging those. There are often short-term paralegal gigs available to help with foreign language discovery. From there it is easier to move to more permanent legal roles.

There’s also a number of very good recruiters I’d recommend reaching out to via LinkedIn. Some that come to mind are Ryder Reid, Montresor Legal, The Law Support Group, etc.

Re QWE, the SRA has compiled a list of key competencies that you need to prove in order for the QWE to be recognized. It has to involve “experience of providing legal services which enables an individual to develop some or all of the competencies outlined in the Statement of Solicitor Competence”. If you manage to secure a legal role, you need to then have a chat with your employer to see whether your role fulfills those competencies AND whether your employer is a solicitor who is willing to sign off on that experience.

Good luck!!

Thanks for this. I've found that even the short-term paralegal gigs are difficult to locate and apply to but I'll pay more attention to it.

Let's say I know that long-term, I wanna be a litigation/disputes lawyer, would being a paralegal at a large intl. firm but doing corporate work instead hurt my chances of being a disputes lawyer due to the lack of specialist experience? That's another aspect I'm wary of to not hurt my long-term chances. Effectively, should I be looking for disputes paralegal roles specifically?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thanks for this. I've found that even the short-term paralegal gigs are difficult to locate and apply to but I'll pay more attention to it.

Let's say I know that long-term, I wanna be a litigation/disputes lawyer, would being a paralegal at a large intl. firm but doing corporate work instead hurt my chances of being a disputes lawyer due to the lack of specialist experience? That's another aspect I'm wary of to not hurt my long-term chances. Effectively, should I be looking for disputes paralegal roles specifically?

No - it wouldn't harm your chances, as generally they would look at what you did during a training contract rather than any previous paralegal work. The only way I could see it impacting where you qualified, is if you qualified via the SQE and only used the corporate experience as your qualifying work experience.

 

[TC fiend]

Thanks for this. I've found that even the short-term paralegal gigs are difficult to locate and apply to but I'll pay more attention to it.

Let's say I know that long-term, I wanna be a litigation/disputes lawyer, would being a paralegal at a large intl. firm but doing corporate work instead hurt my chances of being a disputes lawyer due to the lack of specialist experience? That's another aspect I'm wary of to not hurt my long-term chances. Effectively, should I be looking for disputes paralegal roles specifically?

No this really wouldn’t hurt you, as Jessica said above. I’m a disputes paralegal but sitting in a team that does mainly financial litigation and white collar crime, which I’m sure will help me in a capital markets seat down the line if I secure a TC. Vice versa, if you got experience as a corporate paralegal that would give you excellent insight into the business of clients who you might later encounter in litigation. While the work is quite different in the two practice groups, I’d try to see it as sort of a secondment if you will, whereby you get a chance to paint a clearer, more holistic picture of all your clients needs.

 

[NaimK]

No - it wouldn't harm your chances, as generally they would look at what you did during a training contract rather than any previous paralegal work. The only way I could see it impacting where you qualified, is if you qualified via the SQE and only used the corporate experience as your qualifying work experience.

I meant to separate the two processes (i.e. TC/VS vs. QWE). So if I chose to adopt the new route i.e. SQE + QWE, and I know that I wanna qualify as a disputes lawyer, that corporate experience being my only QWE would hinder me. However, considering one seats' worth of experience in a TC is usually sufficient for you to qualify into that department (so about 6 months' worth), would it be safe to say 6 months' QWE in disputes is good enough?

No this really wouldn’t hurt you, as Jessica said above. I’m a disputes paralegal but sitting in a team that does mainly financial litigation and white collar crime, which I’m sure will help me in a capital markets seat down the line if I secure a TC. Vice versa, if you got experience as a corporate paralegal that would give you excellent insight into the business of clients who you might later encounter in litigation. While the work is quite different in the two practice groups, I’d try to see it as sort of a secondment if you will, whereby you get a chance to paint a clearer, more holistic picture of all your clients needs.

Thanks a lot. As I just responded to Jessica above, I've separated the two processes. It's either I qualify old-school style with a TC or I gain two years of QWE that is signed off on and I become a lawyer. However, I wanted to make sure that if I gained 2 years of QWE doing transactional work only but I want to be a disputes lawyer, I would not be barred from doing so.

I understand both your answers in the context of me 'paralegalling' and then securing a TC, but that wasn't the scenario I envisaged when asking the Q.

You both have answered it now in any case, so much appreciated!

 

[TC fiend]

I meant to separate the two processes (i.e. TC/VS vs. QWE). So if I chose to adopt the new route i.e. SQE + QWE, and I know that I wanna qualify as a disputes lawyer, that corporate experience being my only QWE would hinder me. However, considering one seats' worth of experience in a TC is usually sufficient for you to qualify into that department (so about 6 months' worth), would it be safe to say 6 months' QWE in disputes is good enough?



Thanks a lot. As I just responded to Jessica above, I've separated the two processes. It's either I qualify old-school style with a TC or I gain two years of QWE that is signed off on and I become a lawyer. However, I wanted to make sure that if I gained 2 years of QWE doing transactional work only but I want to be a disputes lawyer, I would not be barred from doing so.

I understand both your answers in the context of me 'paralegalling' and then securing a TC, but that wasn't the scenario I envisaged when asking the Q.

You both have answered it now in any case, so much appreciated!

Sorry, that wasn’t clear. I was just responding to, “Let's say I know that long-term, I wanna be a litigation/disputes lawyer, would being a paralegal at a large intl. firm but doing corporate work instead hurt my chances of being a disputes lawyer due to the lack of specialist experience?”

But I’m glad it answered your questions and hope that gives you some peace of mind!

 

[Jessica Booker]

I meant to separate the two processes (i.e. TC/VS vs. QWE). So if I chose to adopt the new route i.e. SQE + QWE, and I know that I wanna qualify as a disputes lawyer, that corporate experience being my only QWE would hinder me. However, considering one seats' worth of experience in a TC is usually sufficient for you to qualify into that department (so about 6 months' worth), would it be safe to say 6 months' QWE in disputes is good enough?



Thanks a lot. As I just responded to Jessica above, I've separated the two processes. It's either I qualify old-school style with a TC or I gain two years of QWE that is signed off on and I become a lawyer. However, I wanted to make sure that if I gained 2 years of QWE doing transactional work only but I want to be a disputes lawyer, I would not be barred from doing so.

I understand both your answers in the context of me 'paralegalling' and then securing a TC, but that wasn't the scenario I envisaged when asking the Q.

You both have answered it now in any case, so much appreciated!

There are a lot of unknowns with the SQE - no one has qualified via that route yet so it is really hard to comment on what would happen.

But just a few things to flag:

Your paralegal experience (whether in Corporate or in Disputes) may allow you to qualify where it is deemed to be QWE, but that doesn't mean that firms will consider it equivalent to a training contract seat. This is the major issue with the new qualification system. If we take it to its extreme, someone could use their work experience in a university free law clinic as QWE. That does not mean firms will necessarily value it as what they deem QWE to be. Therefore there is a risk that you become qualified but under-experienced, because you haven't worked at the level/complexity a trainee has.

The old qualification system created a need for seat rotations as trainees had to see three distinct areas of law. This meant someone sitting in something like corporate and then in litigation was common, as it allowed you to see different areas of law which was necessary to qualify. This requirement is no longer needed under the SQE. People could do the whole of the QWE in one practice area should the firm they are working for want that. This means the value of different experiences (seats/QWE) could change when looking to recruit NQs or junior qualified lawyers.

Although there is a lot of value in someone still seeing different areas of law (as @FS has mentioned, there is value in that from a knowledge/skills perspective), what is unknown is whether we will start to see two types of "training contract" - one where you effectively specialise from the outset (some firms are doing this already) and one where you rotate around to work out where you want to qualify into. This change could have quite a big impact on NQ processes - although again, this is speculation as we won't really know the general trends of how it impacts qualification processes for a good 4-6+ years.

I am fairly sure though that if you qualified with only 2 years of experience in Corporate, it is going to be very difficult for you to become a disputes NQ as you won't have comparable experience to other NQs in the market who will have some disputes experience.

 

[TC fiend]

There are a lot of unknowns with the SQE - no one has qualified via that route yet so it is really hard to comment on what would happen.

But just a few things to flag:

Your paralegal experience (whether in Corporate or in Disputes) may allow you to qualify where it is deemed to be QWE, but that doesn't mean that firms will consider it equivalent to a training contract seat. This is the major issue with the new qualification system. If we take it to its extreme, someone could use their work experience in a university free law clinic as QWE. That does not mean firms will necessarily value it as what they deem QWE to be. Therefore there is a risk that you become qualified but under-experienced, because you haven't worked at the level/complexity a trainee has.

The old qualification system created a need for seat rotations as trainees had to see three distinct areas of law. This meant someone sitting in something like corporate and then in litigation was common, as it allowed you to see different areas of law which was necessary to qualify. This requirement is no longer needed under the SQE. People could do the whole of the QWE in one practice area should the firm they are working for want that. This means the value of different experiences (seats/QWE) could change when looking to recruit NQs or junior qualified lawyers.

Although there is a lot of value in someone still seeing different areas of law (as @FS has mentioned, there is value in that from a knowledge/skills perspective), what is unknown is whether we will start to see two types of "training contract" - one where you effectively specialise from the outset (some firms are doing this already) and one where you rotate around to work out where you want to qualify into. This change could have quite a big impact on NQ processes - although again, this is speculation as we won't really know the general trends of how it impacts qualification processes for a good 4-6+ years.

I am fairly sure though that if you qualified with only 2 years of experience in Corporate, it is going to be very difficult for you to become a disputes NQ as you won't have comparable experience to other NQs in the market who will have some disputes experience.

Very interesting insight Jessica! I do wonder if people are qualifying from the start (ie doing two years of one practice group) whether that means on the flip side they might be better NQs. Very interesting development either way

 

[NaimK]

There are a lot of unknowns with the SQE - no one has qualified via that route yet so it is really hard to comment on what would happen.

But just a few things to flag:

Your paralegal experience (whether in Corporate or in Disputes) may allow you to qualify where it is deemed to be QWE, but that doesn't mean that firms will consider it equivalent to a training contract seat. This is the major issue with the new qualification system. If we take it to its extreme, someone could use their work experience in a university free law clinic as QWE. That does not mean firms will necessarily value it as what they deem QWE to be. Therefore there is a risk that you become qualified but under-experienced, because you haven't worked at the level/complexity a trainee has.

The old qualification system created a need for seat rotations as trainees had to see three distinct areas of law. This meant someone sitting in something like corporate and then in litigation was common, as it allowed you to see different areas of law which was necessary to qualify. This requirement is no longer needed under the SQE. People could do the whole of the QWE in one practice area should the firm they are working for want that. This means the value of different experiences (seats/QWE) could change when looking to recruit NQs or junior qualified lawyers.

Although there is a lot of value in someone still seeing different areas of law (as @FS has mentioned, there is value in that from a knowledge/skills perspective), what is unknown is whether we will start to see two types of "training contract" - one where you effectively specialise from the outset (some firms are doing this already) and one where you rotate around to work out where you want to qualify into. This change could have quite a big impact on NQ processes - although again, this is speculation as we won't really know the general trends of how it impacts qualification processes for a good 4-6+ years.

I am fairly sure though that if you qualified with only 2 years of experience in Corporate, it is going to be very difficult for you to become a disputes NQ as you won't have comparable experience to other NQs in the market who will have some disputes experience.

Makes a lot of sense. The new system appears to be too much in the infancy stage still to make concrete determinations about pursuing that route definitively. Also, from my conversations with others, it seems best to still pursue a TC as it is a tried and true method, even at the expense of delaying qualification.

At least I know now that if I do paralegal in corporate for example, I can still build on my experience, earn a salary etc. while looking to either leverage a role in a specialist field I prefer or until I get a TC opportunity.

Thanks again to you and @FS.