TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[Law2021vacschemer]

For the White & Case VS app, it just says "please provide a covering letter in the space below". Do you still set it out as a letter or is that not necessary? There doesn't seem to be a word limit either, does anyone know roughly how long it should be? Thanks!

Hi I formatted it like a normal cover letter (I did the first year scheme with them and they said to do this), and I think it should be no more than a page long ideally. Hope that helps

 

[golden99]

Still no word from Linklaters? I haven't even got my Watson Glaser feedback yet. Normally they respond very promptly with the feedback and outcome email, but I've heard nothing and it's been almost a month since I sent off my application. Can anyone else relate? (I applied for the Spring VC btw)

I’ve got my wg feedback (I emailed to request it), nothing back on status of the app though

 

[maw1887]

I’ve got my wg feedback (I emailed to request it), nothing back on status of the app though

Ah thanks for sharing that

 

[WeRegretToInformYou]

Still no word from Linklaters? I haven't even got my Watson Glaser feedback yet. Normally they respond very promptly with the feedback and outcome email, but I've heard nothing and it's been almost a month since I sent off my application. Can anyone else relate? (I applied for the Spring VC btw)

When I applied (and got to ac) last year they only sent WG report after I asked for it

 

[Jessica Booker]

The problem is that I have literally done that. I have gotten my apps reviewed by so many people - as I said - who themselves have secured these roles. And I have applied every single piece of advice and corrected every single mistake found.I know the power of introspection and I really do have tried to use that to improve my application strength.

I wouldn’t expect application reviews (even those done by me!) to pick up on someone’s development points. They pick up on areas to improve in an application, but not a candidate as a whole.

 

[Jessica Booker]

As I explained above I have asked so many people to review my apps. I have applied every single piece of advice.

As for the vac scheme, my father passed away during the scheme, and I was unable to attend two days of it and was in no way mentally prepared to give it my best during the TC interview. My mistake was not explaining this to GR so I could get more leniency and understanding during the review process. I was in a massive existential crisis and made the not very level-headed decision that it was no point telling GR about this because I would rather stay in my home town and take care of my family and never consider a career in London again. Anyway, enough sob stories; my point is that whatever weakness that led to me not converting has nothing to do with my application pre-interview stage. For the application itself I have sought out so many resources and advice and I am not even reaching the interview stage.

I am very sorry to hear about your father.

You may want to explain this as mitigating circumstances in future applications. Providing some context on that you had to take time away from the vacation scheme and couldn’t give it your full focus is legitimate, and therefore should you choose to do so, would be appropriate to include in any extra information/mitigating circumstances sections of applications.

 

[Rob93]

It is under the 'one firm worldwide' ethos homepage, stating that the firm has no satellite office/headquarters as an integrated office

Right so JD really runs this as a USP - I'm not sure how different they really are than some other firms on this point, but it's obviously very important to them.

One thing here is structural - JD operates a unitary partnership, including profit share across borders. Cf. Baker McKenzie, which is similarly globally distributed but operates as a Swiss Verein, with profits siloed by operating entity (usually per jurisdiction).

What proponents of unitary Partnership will tell you is that their model is better because it means that the team in, say, Singapore is fully incentivised to give their all on an instruction originating in, say, Paris. The criticism of the Verein model by contrast is that there is an incentive in each office to prioritise work originated there over work brought in from other offices. Proponents of the Verein will say this problem is overstated, that there's a global commitment to the brand, and the offices aren't siloed for operational purposes. All of this is debatable - JD obviously leans into the unitary model so think through those advantages.

The 'no home office' component follows a related line of argument. There's a perception that the global firms which have grown out of the US and UK are still 'domiciled' in their home country, that they're best suited to work originating in the home country or to be conducted in that home country. This is obviously somewhat true for like, Slaughters and Wachtell, which have minimal global footprints. It is arguably somewhat true for the American PE heavyweights/spec firms, simply because a huge amount of PE work is American capital flowing into int'l businesses - although the UK, Europe and Asia all have their own thriving PE industries, American investment firms loom large.
Firms like JD, W&C, Bakers, (the list goes on) will say 'it doesn't matter where we came from, what matters is where we are and where we're going' - they do not want to be perceived as American firms. This is partly about projecting global competence (we can deal with your problem in any jurisdiction) and partly about appealing to global clients (we are not a local office of a foreign outfit, we are as much part of the legal market of [country] as [notable domestic firm].'

 

[Rob93]

Right so JD really runs this as a USP - I'm not sure how different they really are than some other firms on this point, but it's obviously very important to them.

One thing here is structural - JD operates a unitary partnership, including profit share across borders. Cf. Baker McKenzie, which is similarly globally distributed but operates as a Swiss Verein, with profits siloed by operating entity (usually per jurisdiction).

What proponents of unitary Partnership will tell you is that their model is better because it means that the team in, say, Singapore is fully incentivised to give their all on an instruction originating in, say, Paris. The criticism of the Verein model by contrast is that there is an incentive in each office to prioritise work originated there over work brought in from other offices. Proponents of the Verein will say this problem is overstated, that there's a global commitment to the brand, and the offices aren't siloed for operational purposes. All of this is debatable - JD obviously leans into the unitary model so think through those advantages.

The 'no home office' component follows a related line of argument. There's a perception that the global firms which have grown out of the US and UK are still 'domiciled' in their home country, that they're best suited to work originating in the home country or to be conducted in that home country. This is obviously somewhat true for like, Slaughters and Wachtell, which have minimal global footprints. It is arguably somewhat true for the American PE heavyweights/spec firms, simply because a huge amount of PE work is American capital flowing into int'l businesses - although the UK, Europe and Asia all have their own thriving PE industries, American investment firms loom large.
Firms like JD, W&C, Bakers, (the list goes on) will say 'it doesn't matter where we came from, what matters is where we are and where we're going' - they do not want to be perceived as American firms. This is partly about projecting global competence (we can deal with your problem in any jurisdiction) and partly about appealing to global clients (we are not a local office of a foreign outfit, we are as much part of the legal market of [country] as [notable domestic firm].'

Caveat I am not sure if unitary partnership is a term anyone actually uses I just like it, there may be a more correct term that would be better to use if discussing this on interview.

 

[Jessica Booker]

..........it is sadly quite tempting to make your mind wander towards cynicism when your peers with far less impressive CVs and worse grades seem to breeze through the application process (many of them have shown me their apps, so I am not throwing wild assumptions here).

Recruitment is an art, not a science. Higher grades or more work experience don't equate to more success. There are so many factors that make up an application that you can never truly understand why someone is being chosen over you. The only person who will be able to explain that is the recruiter, and even then it is based on the opinions of people in their firm rather than some form of a completely objective process.

Considering most firms have such a strong focus on improving social mobility too I would encourage you to think about this differently. I would be happy to discuss how I think the Legal Cheek comments are also severely flawed if you would like. But ultimately I would encourage anyone to not take the comments section on LC as a place where you can have a serious and balanced discussion - the website was purposely designed to be controversial and sensational for clickbait purposes.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Recruitment is an art, not a science. Higher grades or more work experience don't equate to more success. There are so many factors that make up an application that you can never truly understand why someone is being chosen over you. The only person who will be able to explain that is the recruiter, and even then it is based on the opinions of people in their firm rather than some form of a completely objective process.

Considering most firms have such a strong focus on improving social mobility too I would encourage you to think about this differently. I would be happy to discuss how I think the Legal Cheek comments are also severely flawed if you would like. But ultimately I would encourage anyone to not take the comments section on LC as a place where you can have a serious and balanced discussion - the website was purposely designed to be controversial and sensational for clickbait purposes.

I hope if the community does continue with this conversation that we keep things respectful.

We encourage diverse opinions in this forum, but I would encourage everyone to consider how their posts could be construed when writing on such a contentious topic - it is likely to raise some emotive responses and therefore I would encourage people to consider why people might have a different perspective or how you might read something differently to the next person.

 

[YUKI1201]

Hi all!
I'm drafting my WC cover letter and was wondering if I could apply the same strategy which I used for personal statement for FF (15% why law, 15% why firm and 70% why me)? Or is cover letter essentially different from PS in terms of structure, tone, etc.?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi all!
I'm drafting my WC cover letter and was wondering if I could apply the same strategy which I used for personal statement for FF (15% why law, 15% why firm and 70% why me)? Or is cover letter essentially different from PS in terms of structure, tone, etc.?

Your strategy of what you include really depends on the other information you are providing in the rest of the application. Try to think of your application not only as its individual component parts, but also the information you present as a whole. That might mean that you actually have a different approach between cover letters.

 

[Rob93]

Hi all!
I'm drafting my WC cover letter and was wondering if I could apply the same strategy which I used for personal statement for FF (15% why law, 15% why firm and 70% why me)? Or is cover letter essentially different from PS in terms of structure, tone, etc.?

I don't think there's really a fundamental difference except that a cover letter will usually be addressed in some way whereas a personal statement you just get straight to it (cover letters similarly should be signed off, personal statements need not be).

 

[Lastseasonwonder]

When I'm reading about private equity, I'm getting slightly confused about the term 'private equity house'. Is it just another phrase for 'private equity firm'?

With that said, if 'private equity house' = 'private equity firm' then when the former term is used a distinction is made between private equity firm and a private equity fund, right? This would be because the Firm and the Fund are completely different? This brings me to another point, which is that when we talk about PE firms, like TPG capital, where exactly is the PE fund in the situation. Are the PE funds created by these PE firms, and where do they stand when talking from a company structure point of view?

Anyone with the knowledge, would really appreciate some clarification!

@Daniel Boden - I've tagged you here as I am aware that you are very interested in private equity.

 

[Zubin]

Is this for the spring scheme ?

Summer scheme

 

[JayB]

PM me, happy to talk about my experience!

Thank you! Will do

 

[JayB]

Anyone heard back from HSF on their summer VS?

Yes me 😊

 

[Zubin]

I’ve got my wg feedback (I emailed to request it), nothing back on status of the app though

Hello! Just clarifying - is this a separate report from the Capp assessment report detailing your strengths? Do they give you your actual score?

Thanks!

 

[m2001]

Yes me 😊

Congrats! May I ask when you applied please?

 

[Rob93]

When I'm reading about private equity, I'm getting slightly confused about the term 'private equity house'. Is it just another phrase for 'private equity firm'?

With that said, if 'private equity house' = 'private equity firm' then when the former term is used a distinction is made between private equity firm and a private equity fund, right? This would be because the Firm and the Fund are completely different? This brings me to another point, which is that when we talk about PE firms, like TPG capital, where exactly is the PE fund in the situation. Are the PE funds created by these PE firms, and where do they stand when talking from a company structure point of view?

Anyone with the knowledge, would really appreciate some clarification!

@Daniel Boden - I've tagged you here as I am aware that you are very interested in private equity.

A PE house is a PE firm, funds are basically discrete pools of investment capital set up and managed by the firm.

I'm more familiar with the corporate side of PE than the fund side, so the rest of what I'll write is probably not a perfect explanation but I don't think anything is outright wrong (happy to take correction, however).

Funds will be set up as limited partnerships or similar, and are basically the nexus of time-limited commitments, by a defined set of investors, to contribute a defined amount of capital over the life of the fund.

Investors (and the PE house) own stakes in the fund, and the fund owns the various topcos set up to make investments, which in turn own the midcos, which own the bidcos which own the opcos.

Sometimes individual investors who are already involved in the fund will make additional investments in a given acquisition and invest at topco, but that's entirely distinct from their investment in the fund.

All of this is set up to be very tax efficient.