Hi
@rose888,
Thanks for the question. This is a tricky one.
Firm choice can be (and arguably always is) very personal. I would argue so long as your reason for applying to each firm is independently strong, it should not be an issue that you have applied to a contrasting 'type' of firm.
The focus should be on your justification for applying.
For example, take a candidate that applied to two firms.
This candidate interacted with W firm in their first year at university, really liked their GR team and the trainees they spoke to inspired them. These are strong (
initial) reasons for applying. Similarly, this person also applied to X firm because X are strong in disputes, having represented Y client who appealed to them because of Z, this would be a good reason to apply to this firm too.
If W had 50 overseas offices, yet X only had two in the UK, it is likely these firms are very different. Yet the candidate had strong reasons to apply to both as detailed above.
Firms can also appear very different in some ways, but actually be substantively similar in others. W and X might despite their contrasting international strategy, have particular strengths in disputes, or have a very small trainee cohort in London, or both offer eight seats to trainees during their training contract.
So long as you can give adequate justification and are able to demonstrate that you have thought your choices through thoroughly, you should be fine.
I also discussed this question on the Premium Forum
here which might be helpful!
