TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[eirake]

Hey guys,

Wondering if anyone who selected only the PW summer VS (not both) has received an invitation for the AC?

I haven’t gotten a PFO yet so I’m wondering if anyone else is in the same boat?

I selected only summer and no PFO yet

 

[fta2024]

Still waiting to hear back from HL post WG for a potential AC invite, no actual rejection email. am i being delusional thinking there might be a chance?

 

[tomsmitg]

Hi, if anyone has ever done a second-stage mofo interview Id really appreciate some insight

 

[A worried graduate]

Wow! This is a good position to be in. Of the four I would choose Weil, the hours will be long but the training, calibre and variety of work is amongst the best in the city. The other firms are far smaller and I have heard S&C is entirely a satellite office.

What is the exact meaning of a satellite office in this context?

 

[A worried graduate]

pretty sure shoosmiths offers (or atleast could offer) visa sponsorship:

View attachment 6920

I think those types of firms only sponsor in London.

Same with Addleshaws I think too

 

[xMontmorency]

Wow! This is a good position to be in. Of the four I would choose Weil, the hours will be long but the training, calibre and variety of work is amongst the best in the city. The other firms are far smaller and I have heard S&C is entirely a satellite office.

Weil is a good choice. If you have nothing but a general interest in commercial law Weil/Cleary have the broadest practices and most solid training programmes. Cleary heavier on competition, litigation and public M&A, Weil on finance, restructuring and PE. Weil arguably a bit more prestigious in London but has been a bit lacklustre recently tbh: Michael Francies is retiring, it lost its Band 1 PE ranking, no notable recent mandates, partner losses in the US etc.

If you want to do top-shelf high-end complex M&A and finance Davis Polk is very good. Its US practice is popping off, and despite being tiny in London it packs a punch. Lateral opportunities arguably better than Weil/Cleary.

S&C is a bit crap in London (respectfully).

 

[addy2004]

Hey everyone - how should I answer the interview question 'Where do you see yourself in the next 5 years?'

I'm unsure what law firms are looking for in this question, and if it should only revolve around a career in commercial law or involve some personal goals too?

 

[TonyStark]

Prestige is a term with a notoriously elusive meaning so I will caveat the following by stipulating that this will just be my personal opinion based on my limited experience in the world of biglaw. Reasonable disagreement can and does exist about almost everything I will comment here.

That being said, the easiest part of the question to deal with is the ranking based on PE expertise:

1. Kirkland: based on their client base, growth, volume of deals, revenue and profitability practice, and the majority of industry rankings, Kirkland is the clear number 1 for PE reputation. While PE is definitely the most important practice area for Latham, PE is part of Kirkland's very identity as a firm. This can be seen from the way the two firms set up their London practice - with Latham going for a more full service and diversified model, whereas Kirkland only has practice areas meant to service PE clients.
2. Latham: Latham definitely has a strong lead over all of the others in PE - them and Kirkland are in a tier of their own.
3. Paul, Weiss/Weil: Whilst among the very best in PE, I would argue Paul, Weiss is in the immediate next category beyond Kirkland and Latham, together with the likes of Simpson Thatcher and Weil. All these firms have PE practitioners that are just as good as Kirkland's and Latham's, and work for equally prestigious clients and on equally high-end matters - in Paul, Weiss' case arguably more so, as their average deal value is higher than that of the two frontrunners. However, everyone else is simply too far away from Kirkland and Latham in terms of volume of mandates and size of PE teams to compete on global PE reputation.
4. Davis Polk/Skadden: Neither of the two has a similar focus on PE as the other firms I listed here, so it is harder to compare them. Based on most Chambers rankings, I would conclude that Davis Polk has the better US/global PE reputation. However, I would similarly conclude that Skadden is more renowned for PE work in London.

For your second question, it is a lot more difficult to come up with any sensible rankings, as general prestige depends on a multitude of factors - history, profitability, quality of practitioners and selectivity, size and growth, reputation in particular jurisdictions, client book, practice area/sector reputation etc. The five firms score differently on these different criteria, and there is no objective way to quantify results or weigh them. As such, I will only make some more general comments on how they compare and will not provide an actual ranking. I will also say that my personal view is that all of these firms are among the best in the world with differences in overall prestige being very slight and generally quite inconsequential for your career. If I were in a position to choose between any on the list, my decision would depend more on strength in the practice areas I am most interested in and on cultural fit.

• A first distinction can be made between Kirkland and Latham and the other three. Kirkland and Latham are not part of the New York-based 'white shoe' club associated with a long history of an elite practice. Their reputation has been largely built in the last 20 to 30 years and has been closely tied to the rise of the PE industry that the two have made an early bet on. Paul, Weiss, Davis Polk, and Skadden have been considered elite firms for a significantly longer time, which for some counts as an added factor of prestige. Weil is considered to be one of the top New York firms, but it arguably does not have as much historical prestige as the other three - which can be seen from the fact that it has traditionally been included in the V10 (the list of the 10 most prestigious US firms compiled by Vault each year).
• Kirkland/Latham's main selling point prestige-wise is based on their size and brand - because of the volume of mandates they work on and their astronomical revenues. If you speak to any person in the world of international business, their names will probably be best known. On the other hand, Paul, Weiss and Davis Polk run a smaller but arguably more high-end focused practice, at least judging from their average deal sizes and comparative deal volumes. Some also argue, at least for their US practice, that the two tend to have more selective recruitment than Kirkland/Latham; the size of the latter two means that they have a lot more slots to fill, which means they sometimes cannot only accept the very highest-achieving candidates. Skadden is at the midpoint between the quality-focused and size-focused reputations, as it has a higher volume and revenue than Paul, Weiss/Davis Polk but also tends to be more focused on the high-end segment than Latham and Kirkland.
• For recent profitability, which is arguably the most important factor for prestige, Kirkland comes first (alongside Wachtell and some US litigation boutiques). However, compared to the others, Kirkland also has a significantly more expanded non-equity partner tier, which probably helps in keeping equity ranks lean. Davis Polk and Paul, Weiss (alongside the likes of Sullivan Cromwell and Simpson Thatcher) would follow in the immediate next tier, with an average PEP hovering around $6-7 million in recent years. Latham and Skadden are just bellow that, sitting in the $5.5-6 million region. Weil comes last, around the $4-5 million range.
• Finally, their prestige is very different on a practice-area specific basis. Skadden clearly has the best reputation for corporate M&A - arguably, it is for M&A what Skadden is for PE. Davis Polk probably has the best reputation for capital markets and finance, being the only true "Wall Street firm" in the group. As said before, Latham and Kirkland dominate in the PE space. Weil is among the best for PE and restructuring. Paul, Weiss is amazing for PE and is the best in the group for disputes work in the US (and particularly for white collar crime).

Hi Andrei

This is so insightful, thank you for sharing!

If I may, can you help me understand more about who Skadden’s direct competitors are? I’m trying to understand whether Skadden’s direct competitors are simply other US firms or if it is broader than that. Thank you.

 

[member7830]

does anyone have advice for the best way to prep for a vac scheme, to give you the best chance of getting the training contract? would really appreciate any tips on anything I could be doing now!

 

[chillipepper789]

Hi there - I have an in-person interview for Arnold & Porter which includes a written assessment - any insight to the process would be incredible!

 

[Tintin06]

is this okay to say in an email to a law firm, I really can't tell ahaha: "I was wondering if I could get any more information on when I can expect to hear back with the outcome. No worries if this is not possible, however, I just wanted to reach out and ask as I am considering other offers with imminent deadlines, and would love to know if it would be possible to know if I will know the outcome before I respond to other offers."

"Would you kindly provide an update on timeframes if this it all possible? I understand if this is not the case, but I felt I should be transparent with the firm as I am considering other offers with looming deadlines. Thank you in advance for your understanding". Although IMO if it's imminent, call them.

 

[Andrei Radu]

This is actually incredible! I was thinking about how I could structure and articulate an answer to questions like ‘who are Paul, Weiss’ competitors and how does Paul, Weiss compare to them’ or ‘what are Paul, Weiss’ USPs when compared to its competitors’ and then I see this post, which discussed quite similar things. Once again, the GOAT @Andrei Radu has come in clutch! You are an actual superstar! 🐐

I do have a question though. Since Paul, Weiss is relatively new in London, if I were to be asked about Paul, Weiss’ position in the City of London specifically, how could I navigate my approach to this kind of question? Would firms like Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Davis Polk, etc. be considered its close competitors in the UK as well, since Paul, Weiss’ clients in London are mainly PE firms? Or would it be more likely that Paul, Weiss want to target other US law firms in the city? I guess this part of the question is asking about Paul, Weiss’ strategy and future plans in London.​

Thank you again for the kind words Chris😄!! For the question about Paul, Weiss' position in the City, I would describe it as a middle-to-large office with a full service offering tailored for PE clients and a strategic focus on high end mandates. While its English law practice is very new, you can definitely argue this will not be an impediment for delivering the highest quality of legal services on the most complex matters. Firstly, Paul, Weiss has poached some of the most renowned practitioners in most of its practice areas - leaders in their fields such as Neel Sachdev in leveraged finance and Nicole Kar in antitrust. Secondly, Paul, Weiss' expansion was quite unique in that it poached many ready-made teams of partners and associates. Thus, many of its lawyers will know how to seamlessly work together from day one. Even for those that had not worked in the same teams before, integration is likely to have been a lot easier than normally would have been the case. The legal press reported that the majority had a background at either Kirkland or Linklaters, which means that they will have both been trained in the same style and will have likely known each other and had working relations.

For the second question, I would firstly comment that the more relevant competitors of Paul, Weiss' would be US and not UK firms. This is both because of Paul, Weiss' focus on PE, in which the US firms tend to dominate, and simply because the clients the firm is hoping to represent are US-based PE firms who need advice and services on deals/matters with English law elements. Among the US competitors, because on Paul, Weiss' high-end focus, those will mostly be the firms in the V10 and (to a somewhat lower extent) the V20. The Vault rankings are of course not an objective ranking of expertise, but I would argue they are a rough indicator to the "band" of prestige a US firms places into, especially in relation to high-end transactional matters. The lower down the list you go, the greater the likelihood that you won't often find that particular firm advising on the highest value mandates.

Now within the V20, different firms will have different practice area strengths. and will target different client bases. To identify the most important competitors, you want to identify the firms that Paul, Weiss' will most often find themselves pitching against when trying to win a mandate. Thus, the ones you want to pick are those whose core client base consists of PE clients. Since Skadden's central focus is on corporate M& and its core client base consists of multinational corporations, I would not name them among Paul, Weiss' greatest competitors. Normally I would have made a similar comment on Davis Polk, as its focus is on capital markets and the most important clients are investment banks like JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley. However, after its recent expansion in London I would say the firm is now getting closer to an equal split of M&A/PE practitioners and capital markets ones. More importantly, Davis Polk's London office has previously advised Apollo on a number of mandates, and Apollo is the one key client that Paul, Weiss has a very strong relationship to in the US; and which it now aims to also represent on as many London matters as possible.

Nonetheless, looking at both US rankings and UK practice area focus and client base, the firms I would consider to be Paul, Weiss' foremost competitors are: Kirkland, Latham, Simpson Thatcher, and Weil.

 

[Rus]

Ashurst moving D-Day to February 28th is insanely funny to me, like why prolong our misery beyond what is necessary

 

[aspiringlawstudent123]

genuinely curious but what sort of answers do firms want/expect to hear when they ask you questions along the lines of would you still work for a client if you had moral qualms about them etc etc

 

[member7830]

"Would you kindly provide an update on timeframes if this it all possible? I understand if this is not the case, but I felt I should be transparent with the firm as I am considering other offers with looming deadlines. Thank you in advance for your understanding". Although IMO if it's imminent, call them.

thank you so so much, this is perfect!!!

 

[Paul Jules Steullet]

Weil is a good choice. If you have nothing but a general interest in commercial law Weil/Cleary have the broadest practices and most solid training programmes. Cleary heavier on competition, litigation and public M&A, Weil on finance, restructuring and PE. Weil arguably a bit more prestigious in London but has been a bit lacklustre recently tbh: Michael Francies is retiring, it lost its Band 1 PE ranking, no notable recent mandates, partner losses in the US etc.

If you want to do top-shelf high-end complex M&A and finance Davis Polk is very good. Its US practice is popping off, and despite being tiny in London it packs a punch. Lateral opportunities arguably better than Weil/Cleary.

S&C is a bit crap in London (respectfully).

Spot on analysis of Weil! PE is not doing well but Finance is booming atm. Also Mike Francies left last yr.

 

[theruleofno]

What is the exact meaning of a satellite office in this context?

An office with no real autonomy that leans heavily on another larger office. In the context of S&C the vast majority of decisions are made in New York and London is an afterthought. Work tends to originate in NY with the London office mainly used to service the European needs of American clients. That isn't to say that S&C London originates no work and has no seat at the decision-making table but London is a far smaller cog in the firm's worldwide operations compared to some other U.S firms.

 

[Chris Brown]

An office with no real autonomy that leans heavily on another larger office. In the context of S&C the vast majority of decisions are made in New York and London is an afterthought. Work tends to originate in NY with the London office mainly used to service the European needs of American clients. That isn't to say that S&C London originates no work and has no seat at the decision-making table but London is a far smaller cog in the firm's worldwide operations compared to some other U.S firms.

Would Cravath, Swaine and Moore be considered a satellite office as well then, based on this? 🥲

I hope Cravath decides to launch a proper UK practice someday with training contracts like Paul, Weiss have done recently. I imagine they would be really popular among applicants. 🙂

I did read on Legal Cheek that Cravath had poached some English qualified partners from Shearman & Sterling in 2023 (pre merger with Allen & Overy). I wonder if that was a signal that they were planning to set up a UK practice. 🤷🏾‍♂️​

 

[librame17]

heya which AC day did you do? I was told we wouldn't hear back about whether we'd get the vac scheme or not for a few weeks?

Hii i did Thursday and same so I was really surprised to get a call so soon!

 

[loe]

If anyone has done Russell-Cooke interview before, please can you PM me?