Hi
@LLB0711 that is a great question, and I actually have not seen any detailed discussion the topic.
I think firms are looking for three main things in a candidate when asking the "what other firms have you applied to question":
1. Knowledge of the legal market: the firm wants to see you have properly research the legal market in the City and you know of the different positions and profiles of different firms. Whatever the criteria behind your application strategy (be it practice area or sector strengths, client base, mandates, international offices, size etc), you knowledge of the world of big law will be tested based on your ability to identify the other firms a relevant criterion applies to. This matters to the firm you are interviewing with for two reasons: (a) it evidences a real and constant interest in the world of commercial law, as learning about the different market positions of firms takes time; and (b) it evidences a more genuine interest in their firm, as it shows your application decisions were made from a well-informed perspective.
2. Genuineness of the stated motivations: this brings me to the second point, which is that the firm wants to see whether the reasons you stated for why the firm are genuine. By asking you what other firms you applied to (and potentially the follow-up as to why you chose them) the firm can ascertain the extent to which the underlying motivations behind the 'why the firm' reasons you presented to them also apply to the other choices. For instance, if you were interviewing with Kirkland and mentioned a PE interest as a motivation but then you did not apply to any of the other big names in PE (
Latham, Weil,
Willkie,
Ropes & Gray,
Clifford Chance), this might be problematic. Essentially, if the fundamental motivations for the firm cannot be tracked into your wider applications strategy, this could raise doubts as to your sincerity when formulating them. As such, I think most of the examples you list for other firms you applies to should be chosen with a view to being as compatible as possible with your stated motivations for why the firm.
That said, of course you can also be attracted to some different aspects in different firms at the same time while still being genuine. My only two points here are that: (a) there should not be a huge discrepancy in what is attractive to you - at least for most of the firm you list - and (b) that if there is a big motivational discrepancy, in that reasons A B C made you apply for the firm you are now interviewing with and completely different X Y Z reasons made you apply for another firm, you should be prepared to explain why from your point of view reasons A B C are more important and trump reasons X Y Z. Long story short, the outcome you want from this section is to have convinced the interviewer that
no other firm scores overall better on a more important relevant set of criteria, which is to say that
their firm scores best on your most important set of criteria.
3. Sensible career planning: finally, from my experience firms are also truly interested in whether you are a reflective and sensible person in your career pursuits. As such, you want to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the pros/cons of different firms, you want the criteria you explain were relevant for you to actually be the type of considerations one can base such an important choice, you want to show you understood the competitive landscape of applications, and that you have pursued the goal of obtaining a TC at a top firm in a consistent and well-planned manner. These are all aspects that evidence you just being a thoughtful and careful person, qualities that are immensely important for a trainee solicitor.
An example of a bad answer that candidates sometimes gave here was to say they only applied for the firm they were interviewing with at the moment. This either showed (i) lack of sufficient awareness of how competitive getting a TC is; (ii) overconfidence; (iii) lack of a sufficiently strong desire to obtain a TC; or (iv) dishonesty in answering an interview question to show oneself as enthusiastic about the firm. As you can appreciate, neither of these disjuncts puts the candidate in a good light.
An example of a better answer here was what I discuessed in a successful VS interview with an elite US firm, which was that I was mainly looking for firms who had (i) strong corporate departments; (ii) gave lots of early responsibility; and (iii) had a smaller trainee intake and office size. I then listed a number of firms in this category (which included the firm I was interviewing at) and explained how I prioritized applying for these firms early in the cycle and how firms in these categories made up for around 60-70% of my applications. Then, I told them how the rest of the 30-40% were split between some larger firms with very good corporate practices (MC or top US) and also a number of more mid-market M&A focused firms (like
DLA Piper). I explained how this was due to (a) that while I formed my best possibly informed view on the issue, I was not capable on having a very high degree of certitude as to the which training model and work environment that best suited me - and that as such, I would ideally want to experience a VS in both a larger and in a smaller office and decide on a TC subsequent to that; and (b) in that since my priority goal was to just get a TC from a good firm, taking into account the extreme competitiveness of the process, while I knew my value well enough to mostly apply for what I was most interest in, it made sense to hedge my bets and to not only apply for the most elite of elite firms. When I ended expressing these points, the partner I was speaking to was very impressed and said I had a very sensile approach.
Finally, in choosing how you want to approach constructing your answer you should remember that you likely will not be asked to list every single firm you have applied to. As such, you can pick and choose what examples to mention in a way that best fits your narrative.
