TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[missfuturetraineemaybe]

Hi @Willgetthere and before @Ram Sabaratnam comes back to you, I thought to list some of Gibson Dunn's distinguishing features:

1. Established among the most profitable and prestigious US firms: as a long-term member of the V10 group (the Vault list of the 10 most prestigious US firms, as ranked by US practitioners), Gibson Dunn enjoys a reputation for having one of the most high-end practices in the world. Together with its sky-high PEP figures (only behind Kirkland; Paul, Weiss; Davis Polk, and Sullivan & Cromwell in the City), it has an established place at the top of the legal market. This helps both in attracting the highest quality of practitioners (as it is easier to attract top partners if you have high average PEP figures) and the highest-end mandates.
2. Scale and expansion: as opposed to many of the elite firms it is often grouped together, Gibson Dunn did not sacrifice size for the sake of profitability. With a revenue of over $3bn and 21 offices, it is also one of the largest firms in the world. This offers benefits regarding geographical reach in serving clients and also in giving the firm access to greater resources to invest in further growth.
3. One of the leaders in oil & gas, projects, betting, and entertainment sphere: While spread across a number of sectors, Gibson Dunn boasts of particular expertise in the aforementioned fields, and is established as one of the market leaders in the oil & gas space (which is arguably a lot more important now given political changes).
4. Disputes powerhouse: Gibson Dunn has one of the most renowned contentious practices in the world, and in the US it is arguably the leading firm for appellate law (having recently managed to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron ruling, one of the US' oldest and most important precedents for expanding regulatory power). In London it also has some of the best credentials for disputes of all the US firms, and is specifically well-known for its international commercial arbitration and investor state arbitration work.
5. Impressive blue-chip corporate client book: the firm has one of the most impressive lists of corporate clients in the world, which includes Apple, Meta, Walmart, Intel, Amazon, Uber, Mercedes, and Accenture.

This is so helpful! Who would you say are the firm’s competitors?

 

[NJS]

Anymore news from Paul, Weiss, seems strange to PFO a few and give interviews but not get back to others?

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi, I need help answering the question 'where should we open a new office'. The only answer I have is Saudi Arabia (economic growth etc.) but no clue otherwise, really :/ would anyone be willing to offer their insight please? @Ram Sabaratnam @Andrei Radu @Amma Usman - thanks!

Hi @gazdgazd11 just to add to the excellent points made by @Ram Sabaratnam I would also consider the following three factors:

1. Current client demand: for many firms who consider expanding a crucial point is whether current clients have any operations or need for legal services in that foreign jurisdiction. If you already have an established relationship in London or the US, it is a lot easier to win mandates from a given client in the new jurisdiction rather than winning mandates from new clients (where the firm would have to impress in a pitch to convince them to leave the firm they were previously working with). Furthermore, expanding in the main jurisdictions where your current clients need advice is a way of reducing the risk of them being won over by other firms (as a firm who advises a firm for a mandate in, say, Spain, might as well impress them and then persuade them to give them UK mandates as well). These two factors were central in Brad Karp's decision to invest as much as he did in Paul, Weiss' unprecedented expansion in the City- the firm was reportedly facing increasing demands to have a top London practice form Apollo, one of its most important PE clients.
2. Cost of setting up shop: depending on the state of the legal market in the jurisdiction and the method of expansion chosen (acquisition/merger of a local firm, lateral hiring, organic growth or a combination of the three), the costs of investing in a new office can differ immensely. Establishing a top office in New York for instance is a herculean task, as the combination of sky-high associate and partner salaries and the size of competitors requires a huge amount of invested capital (which, among other things, explains why the Magic Circle firms have found it so difficult to compete with the US firms on their home turf).
3. Legal fees: another crucial consideration is the range of billing rates clients in that jurisdiction are willing to accept. In developing countries companies expect to pay significantly lower fees than in the US and Western Europe. Thus, setting up shop there can result in a dilutive effect on profit pools.

 

[Willgetthere]

Hi @Willgetthere and before @Ram Sabaratnam comes back to you, I thought to list some of Gibson Dunn's distinguishing features:

1. Established among the most profitable and prestigious US firms: as a long-term member of the V10 group (the Vault list of the 10 most prestigious US firms, as ranked by US practitioners), Gibson Dunn enjoys a reputation for having one of the most high-end practices in the world. Together with its sky-high PEP figures (only behind Kirkland; Paul, Weiss; Davis Polk, and Sullivan & Cromwell in the City), it has an established place at the top of the legal market. This helps both in attracting the highest quality of practitioners (as it is easier to attract top partners if you have high average PEP figures) and the highest-end mandates.
2. Scale and expansion: as opposed to many of the elite firms it is often grouped together, Gibson Dunn did not sacrifice size for the sake of profitability. With a revenue of over $3bn and 21 offices, it is also one of the largest firms in the world. This offers benefits regarding geographical reach in serving clients and also in giving the firm access to greater resources to invest in further growth.
3. One of the leaders in oil & gas, projects, betting, and entertainment sphere: While spread across a number of sectors, Gibson Dunn boasts of particular expertise in the aforementioned fields, and is established as one of the market leaders in the oil & gas space (which is arguably a lot more important now given political changes).
4. Disputes powerhouse: Gibson Dunn has one of the most renowned contentious practices in the world, and in the US it is arguably the leading firm for appellate law (having recently managed to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron ruling, one of the US' oldest and most important precedents for expanding regulatory power). In London it also has some of the best credentials for disputes of all the US firms, and is specifically well-known for its international commercial arbitration and investor state arbitration work.
5. Impressive blue-chip corporate client book: the firm has one of the most impressive lists of corporate clients in the world, which includes Apple, Meta, Walmart, Intel, Amazon, Uber, Mercedes, and Accenture.

Thank you @Andrei Radu this is definitely helpful.

 

[Chris Brown]

Anymore news from Paul, Weiss, seems strange to PFO a few and give interviews but not get back to others?

Someone who had their interview recently told me that Paul, Weiss’ interviews are running till next Friday (based on what HR told them). I’m not sure whether Paul, Weiss are doing interviews for both Spring VS and Summer VS at the same time or separately. I was told by this person that it’s the final stage before VS offers are made. I had applied for both VS options. I think they might be doing Spring VS interviews first and then Summer VS ones after, but idk for sure. 🤷🏾‍♂️​

 

[Chris Brown]

Hi @gazdgazd11 just to add to the excellent points made by @Ram Sabaratnam I would also consider the following three factors:

1. Current client demand: for many firms who consider expanding a crucial point is whether current clients have any operations or need for legal services in that foreign jurisdiction. If you already have an established relationship in London or the US, it is a lot easier to win mandates from a given client in the new jurisdiction rather than winning mandates from new clients (where the firm would have to impress in a pitch to convince them to leave the firm they were previously working with). Furthermore, expanding in the main jurisdictions where your current clients need advice is a way of reducing the risk of them being won over by other firms (as a firm who advises a firm for a mandate in, say, Spain, might as well impress them and then persuade them to give them UK mandates as well). These two factors were central in Brad Karp's decision to invest as much as he did in Paul, Weiss' unprecedented expansion in the City- the firm was reportedly facing increasing demands to have a top London practice form Apollo, one of its most important PE clients.
2. Cost of setting up shop: depending on the state of the legal market in the jurisdiction and the method of expansion chosen (acquisition/merger of a local firm, lateral hiring, organic growth or a combination of the three), the costs of investing in a new office can differ immensely. Establishing a top office in New York for instance is a herculean task, as the combination of sky-high associate and partner salaries and the size of competitors requires a huge amount of invested capital (which, among other things, explains why the Magic Circle firms have found it so difficult to compete with the US firms on their home turf).
3. Legal fees: another crucial consideration is the range of billing rates clients in that jurisdiction are willing to accept. In developing countries companies expect to pay significantly lower fees than in the US and Western Europe. Thus, setting up shop there can result in a dilutive effect on profit pools.

Hi @Andrei Radu,

This might sound like a silly question, but how does a firm balance meeting its clients’ needs against its own? In the case of Paul, Weiss, you mentioned that Brad Karp (Chairman) made the decision to invest a lot into Paul, Weiss’ unprecedented expansion into London, with the firm facing increased demand from its PE client Apollo to have a London practice. How does a firm like Paul, Weiss assess (internally) whether what their client wants or needs is suitable for their firm? Of course firms like Paul, Weiss want to attract and retain their clients, but does this mean that law firms like Paul, Weiss are put under significant pressure to comply with client demands at all costs? Apologies if this sounds like a dumb question lmao. 🥲🥲​

 

[Andrei Radu]

This is so helpful! Who would you say are the firm’s competitors?

For competitors in the sense of the "type of firm" Gibson Dunn is most alike, I would list other highly-profitable US firms with both transactional and contentious London practices: Simpson Thacher, Skadden, Milbank, and Latham. However, in many cases it is more useful to look at competitors on a practice area-specific/sector-specific level. I will list bellow some of the firms that have the great reputation in the areas Gibson Dunn specializes in:

• Private Equity: Kirkland, Latham, Weil, Simpson Thatcher, Willkie, Ropes & Gray.
• International Commercial Arbitration and Investor State Arbitration: Quinn Emanuel, Debevoise, Kings & Spalding, White & Case.
• Infrastructure: White & Case, Latham, Kirkland, Weil.
• Oil & Gas: Latham, White & Case, V&E, Akin, Milbank.

 

[NJS]

Someone who had their interview recently told me that Paul, Weiss’ interviews are running till next Friday (based on what HR told them). I’m not sure whether Paul, Weiss are doing interviews for both Spring VS and Summer VS at the same time or separately. I was told it’s the final stage before VS offers are made. I had applied for both VS options. I think they might be doing Spring VS interviews first and then Summer VS ones after, but idk for sure. 🤷🏾‍♂️​

I picked both so hopefully I’ve been moved to summer 🙏🏻

 

[bsh]

If you know can you message me

Will do - no insight yet …

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi @Andrei Radu,

This might sound like a silly question, but how does a firm balance meeting its clients’ needs against its own? In the case of Paul, Weiss, you mentioned that Brad Karp (Chairman) made the decision to invest a lot into Paul, Weiss’ unprecedented expansion into London, with the firm facing increased demand from its PE client Apollo to have a London practice. How does a firm like Paul, Weiss assess (internally) whether what their client wants or needs is suitable for their firm? Of course firms like Paul, Weiss want to attract and retain their clients, but does this mean that law firms like Paul, Weiss are put under significant pressure to comply with client demands at all costs? Apologies if this sounds like a dumb question lmao. 🥲🥲​

That's a great question, although unfortunately my capacity to give an informed view is very limited (these decisions are made by executive partners through rather secretive internal processes, and while I have a passion for researching these matters after all I am not even a trainee yet 😁).

The closeness of Paul, Weiss and Apollo is actually quite unique even in an industry with many institutional relationships, and one which has attracted its fair share of criticism. Essentially, as you suggested in your question, the problem is that too close of a relationship can give the client an inordinate amount of control over the operations of a firm. In the case of Paul, Weiss it seems like even the firm's post-2008 expansion into transactional practice areas was partially the result of a conversation with Apollo (who at the time was only a disputes client), where the PE firm explained what practitioners Paul, Weiss would have to poach to win over its mandates on the PE front. Subsequent to that Paul, Weiss did in fact foster an extremely profitable relationship, one which Business Insider claims brings the US firm more than $100m per year in fees.

However, the same article holds that there have been a number of negative impacts as the result of this and that this relationship has changed "the DNA of the firm". Apparently some insiders claim that those pursuing partnership are encourage to seek to work on Apollo mandates in particular, and that the power balance in the firm's partnership is tilted in favour of those with ties with the PE giant. This can lead to an always on culture when it comes to this client's demands and it can potentially lead to conflicts in prioritizing them over other clients.

Nonetheless, it is unclear if these worries actually materialize and the evidence is at best anecdotal. What is clear that there are many benefits to this kind of connection. In an industry where partners are increasingly mobile between firms and tend to take their client books with them, an entrenched institutional relationship like this can give a firm a lot of certainty as to a constant flow of work. As you rightly identified, it can give the client a lot of power in influencing the firm's strategic priorities. However, firms' and core clients' incentives are often aligned, as I would argue is the case for Paul, Weiss' London expansion.

Just as London has become increasingly important for PE activity in the last decade, so has the profitability of having a London PE offering increased. This is to such an extent that now many in the legal press argue that for a firm to be part of the so-called the "Global Elite" and be truly competitive i in the market for high-end international transactions, it must have both a strong New York and London presence. As such, while Apollo's asking (coupled with the strategic opportunity to take advantage of internal conflicts within Kirkland's partner ranks) may have been the decisive factor in triggering the hiring spree, I also think it may have simply been the last clear indication Paul, Weiss needed to see where the winds of the legal profession were blowing.

 

[sapphireoreos]

@Jessica Booker I’m starting a second part time job in retail next week (for financial reasons). For firms where my application is pending, would it be worth emailing grad rec to update them?

 

[Bbhu19]

Hey @Ram Sabaratnam @Andrei Radu would uou be able to tell me anything about Katten as I can’t find much online)

 

[Jessica Booker]

@Jessica Booker I’m starting a second part time job in retail next week (for financial reasons). For firms where my application is pending, would it be worth emailing grad rec to update them?

No - I don’t think you need to update firms about this. Many candidates will have updates to their application, especially if the recruitment process takes a few months, and it would be very difficult to manage constant updating applications.

I only recommend major updates such as end of year academic results or passing the SQE, or if you have received a TC/VS offer elsewhere and need them to decide on your application. I would only update on jobs if the role is directly relevant to a legal career and also I would recommend waiting until you are in that role for a while before updating them.

 

[gazdgazd11]

Hi @gazdgazd11 just to add to the excellent points made by @Ram Sabaratnam I would also consider the following three factors:

1. Current client demand: for many firms who consider expanding a crucial point is whether current clients have any operations or need for legal services in that foreign jurisdiction. If you already have an established relationship in London or the US, it is a lot easier to win mandates from a given client in the new jurisdiction rather than winning mandates from new clients (where the firm would have to impress in a pitch to convince them to leave the firm they were previously working with). Furthermore, expanding in the main jurisdictions where your current clients need advice is a way of reducing the risk of them being won over by other firms (as a firm who advises a firm for a mandate in, say, Spain, might as well impress them and then persuade them to give them UK mandates as well). These two factors were central in Brad Karp's decision to invest as much as he did in Paul, Weiss' unprecedented expansion in the City- the firm was reportedly facing increasing demands to have a top London practice form Apollo, one of its most important PE clients.
2. Cost of setting up shop: depending on the state of the legal market in the jurisdiction and the method of expansion chosen (acquisition/merger of a local firm, lateral hiring, organic growth or a combination of the three), the costs of investing in a new office can differ immensely. Establishing a top office in New York for instance is a herculean task, as the combination of sky-high associate and partner salaries and the size of competitors requires a huge amount of invested capital (which, among other things, explains why the Magic Circle firms have found it so difficult to compete with the US firms on their home turf).
3. Legal fees: another crucial consideration is the range of billing rates clients in that jurisdiction are willing to accept. In developing countries companies expect to pay significantly lower fees than in the US and Western Europe. Thus, setting up shop there can result in a dilutive effect on profit pools.

Thank you so much! Appreciate it!

 

[Maddy]

Someone who had their interview recently told me that Paul, Weiss’ interviews are running till next Friday (based on what HR told them). I’m not sure whether Paul, Weiss are doing interviews for both Spring VS and Summer VS at the same time or separately. I was told by this person that it’s the final stage before VS offers are made. I had applied for both VS options. I think they might be doing Spring VS interviews first and then Summer VS ones after, but idk for sure. 🤷🏾‍♂️​

Guess it's a pfo for me then cause I only selected Spring.

 

[AS24]

Hiya @AS24


When tackling this, I’d focus on showing a clear understanding of Stephenson Harwood’s (SH) strategic positioning, sector strengths, and I think quite unique approach to professional development. I think a strong response will not only highlight what makes the firm unique from competitors but also explain why you think these differences matter, e.g. for clients or for your own development as a trainee.

1. Balanced Practice Areas and Market Positioning
Given the firm's expertise in shipping and litigation, SH is usually compared to firms such as HFW and WFW. It might be worth thinking about how SH really stands apart from such competitors, especially in light of how much more well-developed SH's corporate and finance practices are in London, particularly in the lower mid-market (£10m-£100m transactions) compared to HFW. You could also mention the unique combination of contentious and transactional work, particularly in sector specialist areas, coupled with strong individual representation in areas like fraud litigation and personal insolvencies. This is also one reason why the firm seems to have done impressively well from a revenue standpoint in the last few years (this article from The Lawyer explicitly draws this connection in relation to the firm's revenue and balanced practice areas).

2. Strategic Growth and International Expansion
As you mentioned, you can also discuss their targeted approach to growth and expansion. They've generally appeared to avoid growing by way of mergers. While it has a strong presence in APAC, the Middle East, and key shipping hubs like Piraeus, it has also been doubling down on its Dubai office in response to increasing Gulf investment. Another way the firm has committed to growing is through expanding its sectoral expertise. The firm’s recently announced five-year strategy is another major differentiator, focusing on decarbonisation, life sciences, private capital & funds, technology, and transportation & trade. This sector-focused approach ensures the firm stays ahead of market trends while maintaining its core strengths when compared again to firms such as HFW and WFW.

3. Innovative approach to talent and professional development
For trainees and junior lawyers, I think one of the things that I've found most compelling about SH is their quite unique approach to professional development. In 2022, they launched their ‘fast track to equity’ programme, which accelerates junior partners into equity positions by developing their management and business development skills. This article from The Lawyer also highlights quite bold steps they've taken in relation to the place of associates at the firm. It mentions that SH has announced plans to get ride of the role of ‘senior associate’ in favour of new ‘managing associate’ title. The managing associate role will be aimed at individuals who have partnership potential and aims to develop the skills they will need at that level. Again, all of this is quite unusual/innovative and demonstrates real investment in talent that goes beyond what is traditionally found at most firms, including its competitors.

These are all just some prompts to get you started on drafting an answer. You definitely don't need to use any of these. Overall, though, I think by structuring your answer around discrete issues, you’ll demonstrate that you understand the firm's positioning from several different angles. Hope that helps. Good luck with your application!

Thank you @Ram Sabaratnam

 

[fxy]

anyone heard from CRS post VI

 

[EA95]

Has anyone heard anything after Stephenson Harwood application?

You won’t know anything until after the deadline, thats what the grad recruitment team said during the open day.

 

[EA95]

TLT VAC SCHEME OFFER! 😍

Not bad for a international student on a graduate visa with average grades from a non-RG / average home country uni!

Happy to share advice where possible.

Congrats 🎉🎉

 

[EA95]

Anyone know when we will hear back from PW post-interview?

Congrats on the interview. Just a quick q, is this a separate stage to the AC? And how was the interview like?