TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[Wannabe_Lawyer]

Yeah same here— fairly similar scores, high numerical/verbal. No idea what happened.

Ditto except I applied to Bristol

 

[A worried graduate]

Hiya @AlegalA

I don't have any particular information on their assessment centre, but just had a look through The Lawyer and Chambers UK and wanted to mention some recent information about the firm in case it helps your preparation (you may already know some/all of this).

Financial performance
The Lawyer reported that DACB had a really strong 2023/24. Their profile on the firm mentioned that revenue passed £300m for the first time, and profit before tax jumped by 15%. Average profit per member was also close to £700k. They’ve been trying to bring down their debt levels too, and while we don’t have exact figures, the firm said it ended the year with more cash and less debt than it started with.

Main areas of work this year
I'm sure you're well aware that the firm is still heavily insurance-focused, but also continues to work on significant personal injury matters. Chambers UK clearly ranks them well in areas such as insurance, personal injury, and mid-market commercial litigation. The firm seems to have doubled down on the litigation work in particular(especially through its Claims Solutions Group, which I'd encourage you to look into). The Lawyer also reported that they were growing their focus outside of just litigation, focussing on commercial, health, and regulatory work too. However it doesn't mention any particular matters on which they've been advising on in those areas. To help focus your research on the firm's practice area specialities prior to your assessment centre, you may want to look into the firms growth in these areas.

Global footprint
They’ve been expanding internationally at pace. Last year alone they opened in Argentina, Hong Kong, and Peru and just recently announced new offices in New York and LA. I found the US news pretty impressive for a UK-based insurance firm. The US legal market is famously hard to break into, especially without a merger or local alliance, so the fact they’re building a presence there independently is definitely noteworthy. Given recent political changes in the US, it's also quite interesting that they've double down on their interest in the US legal market (the new Administration has actually led some UK firms to really rethink their US strategy).

How they’ve set themselves apart from competitors
I'm sure you're well aware that, given the firm's insurance/disputes/personal injury focus, they tend to be pitted against firms such as Irwin Mitchell, Kennedys and Slater and Gordon. Interestingly, while several of their competitors have created spin-off tech or consultancy businesses, DACB seems to have taken a slightly different track. They’ve tried to embed that innovation within the core business. For instance, their Claims Solutions Group already functions as a distinct, tech-savvy arm within their core business. In this way, it seems the firm is innovating without fractionalising its operations in the way that some firms currently seem to be doing.

Hope this all helps a bit!

Maybe this is greedy of me but do you have a similar insight for BCLP?

Thank you

 

[Logan1101]

spb pfo post ac 🤑 can't believe i've managed to fail 8/8 ACs over two cycles

The legal recruitment process is excruciatingly bad. I’ve also yet to secure an offer after 4 assessment centres with different firms the last 2 years.

There’s just too much bias involved in interviews that people are rejected because they weren’t ‘liked’. They shouldn’t allow partners or associates to conduct interviews anymore! It’s awful.

 

[Amehta1]

but what about their verbal and numerical scores?

Mine were:

Verbal: Highest
Numerical: highest
4377

PFO

Highest in both verbal and numerical

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

Hi Ram! I was wondering how you would structure the SWOT analysis. Would you recommend using short bullet points, a paragraph for each Swot portion, or a mixture of both (i.e. bullet point + 1-2 sentences)?

Thanks in advance!

Hiya @Bloo!

I’d say the way you format the analysis will depend on what you're being asked to do (whether it's for a formal memo, an internal note, or even a client-facing email) but in general, I’d recommend using a mixture of subheadings, bullet points, and short explanatory paragraphs to make it both clear and easy to follow. The key is to avoid overwhelming the reader with long blocks of text, but still provide enough explanation so that the analysis is meaningful and not just a list.

With SWOT analysis in particular, there's usually an implicit (or explicit) expectation that you’ll come to a view by the end, i.e. whether you’d advise the client to pursue the opportunity, or which of a few options you think is best. That’s why I’d always start with a short executive summary at the top of the document or section, so that your recommendation is clear from the outset. Just a few sentences that give your headline view, along with a snapshot of the rationale. After that, you can structure the SWOT itself using subheadings (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), and under each one, use a few bullet points with 1–2 lines of explanation to flesh out your thinking. Here's just an example of a template:

Executive Summary
Given [brief context], I recommend that [Client] proceeds with [Opportunity], as the strengths and opportunities outweigh the potential weaknesses and threats. Furthermore, [Opportunity] outweighs the other options that the Client has considered.

Strengths

• Strong brand recognition in the target market – this will give the client a competitive edge.
• Solid existing infrastructure, allowing for low-cost rollout.

Weaknesses

• Limited internal experience in the relevant regulatory landscape.
• Resource stretch: the opportunity would require diverting senior staff from core projects.

Opportunities

• Growing demand in the target sector – early movers may benefit from first-mover advantage.
• Possible partnership with [X], which could de-risk the venture.

Threats

• Increased competition from [Y] entering the space.
• Political uncertainty in [region], which may impact market stability.

If there are multiple opportunities to consider, you would follow a similar structure for the other options. I’d suggest two to four points under each heading, unless you’ve been told to provide a more in-depth analysis. You can also add an overall recommendation at the end, though sometimes it works just as well to bring that into the executive summary at the top. In terms of analysis, this article might also be useful in thinking through the kinds of factors that typically come up in SWOT and PESTLE analysis.

Hope that helps!

 

[trainee4u]

Highest in both verbal and numerical

That's crazy. 9877 is essentially perfect.

Were there any diversity related questions on the application form? I don't remember.

 

[xere]

Feeling super deflated after a WBD PFO had scores of 7677, high intellect & mid numerical.

 

[Amehta1]

That's crazy. 9877 is essentially perfect.

Were there any diversity related questions on the application form? I don't remember.

I can ask but from what I remember discussing the application with them I don’t think so?

 

[trainee4u]

I can ask but from what I remember discussing the application with them I don’t think so?

they say yes but I don't honestly remember

The first stage of our process is a short application form. You’ll be asked to share details of your undergraduate degree and any further vocational education, your life history, and information as part of the Rare Contextualised Recruitment System, which allows us to understand the context in which your experiences have been gained and enables us to identify top candidates from the widest pool possible.

It's weird, if you design a recruitment process in this way you either:

1. end up with irrelevant luck-based distinctions between candidates and/or
2. end up with a large number of candidates with the same score and then you must choose between them based on some undisclosed criteria that are not likely to link to job ability.

 

[legallady123]

Pfo from WBD too and my amberjack score was pretty decent, with average numerical and excelled in verbal 😕 I have lots of paralegal experience and a first in my RG law degree (I know lots of people are in the same situation with a good degree classification and experience, so this doesn’t necessarily stand out) but just a bit surprised at not having progressed past second stage with any apps in my first London cycle 🥲 I genuinely had way better luck in applications as an undergrad with hardly any experience !

 

[Amehta1]

they say yes but I don't honestly remember

The first stage of our process is a short application form. You’ll be asked to share details of your undergraduate degree and any further vocational education, your life history, and information as part of the Rare Contextualised Recruitment System, which allows us to understand the context in which your experiences have been gained and enables us to identify top candidates from the widest pool possible.

It's weird, if you design a recruitment process in this way you either:

1. end up with irrelevant luck-based distinctions between candidates and/or
2. end up with a large number of candidates with the same score and then you must choose between them based on some undisclosed criteria that are not likely to link to job ability.

Definitely, some greater clarity and transparency about the selection process would be highly appreciated.

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

SPB VAC SCHEME offer!!

Amazing! Great firm! I hope it goes so well!

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

Which office? Me too 🩷

Another vac scheme offer on this forum! May your free coffee be strong and your redlines few!!!

 

[BillSikes]

my friend got a PFO from WBD London today after getting 9877 on the assessment. Especially because there were no application questions, with a score as high as that I can’t think of one reason for the rejection? What would they even have based it on?

Yes it’s absolutely ridiculous

 

[trainee4u]

Yes it’s absolutely ridiculous

honestly the firm did so much damage to its reputation with the Post Office case, I'm not sure how they think that recruitment processes like this are a step in the right direction. "ooh we have a reputational issue, what can we do, oh I know, let's make everything based on a short SJT, then pick people at random anyway".

 

[xanderlawyer]

The legal recruitment process is excruciatingly bad. I’ve also yet to secure an offer after 4 assessment centres with different firms the last 2 years.

There’s just too much bias involved in interviews that people are rejected because they weren’t ‘liked’. They shouldn’t allow partners or associates to conduct interviews anymore! It’s awful.

At the end of the day, partners have ownership in the firm and it is of material interest of them to engage in the recruiting process. Partners look for people they can see working alongside, and I've learned that their choice can be a lot more human-centred than grades / scores in an assesment. Being likeable / charismatic / enthusiastic will of course put you in much better stead. This is why it is important to find firms whose culture aligns with your character.

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

Quick WG Assumption Q:

For humankind to survive, it must colonise other planets.
Assumption - There will be a time when the Earth can no longer sustain human life.

Am I right in saying that an assumption has been made here?

The only thing I can think of against this is that Earth may very well sustain human life, but not be sufficient. Then again, that would mean that it technically cannot sustain human life, and therefore, the assumption is made.

Also, if I were to invert this: There will be a time when the Earth can sustain human life, then the proposed statement becomes redundant, which should logically indicate that there is an assumption, no?

3.30 am yk, I hate these damn tests.

Hiya @broalabear


Just wanted to add to what @Amma Usman has already said. Hoping this makes sense as an explanation for what you should try to do during the assumption section of the WG. Good news is that you're right that this proposed assumption is assumed by the main claim.

An assumption is a statement that the writer/speaker takes for granted in order for another claim to make sense. It’s not stated directly, but it’s essential for the logic of the main claim to hold up. If the proposed assumption turned out to be false, then the main claim/argument would either collapse or at least become much weaker.

One useful way to test whether a statement is an assumption is to imagine what would happen if that proposed assumption were false. I call this the 'negation test'. Ask yourself: if this proposed assumption were false, would the main claim/argument still work? If the answer is no (e.g. if the main claim/argument falls apart), then the proposed assumption IS assumed. If the main statement/argument still works fine, then it’s probably not an assumption.

Let’s take the example you've provided here:

1. Main claim: "For humankind to survive, it must colonise other planets."
   
   
2. Proposed assumption: "There will be a time when the Earth can no longer sustain human life."

Now try negating the proposed assumption. Imagine that the Earth will always be able to sustain humankind. If that were true, then would we need to colonise other planets to survive (remember, this is what's being claimed in (1))? Doesn't look like it. Thus, the main claim is significantly weakened/no longer makes sense if we don't accept the proposed assumption.

This method works well in general: take the proposed assumption you're testing, imagine it's false, and see what happens to the main argument/claim. If the whole thing unravels, you've found an assumption. If the argument/claim still stands, then the proposed assumption is very likely not an assumed.

Let me know if you’d like to more examples or if this doesn't make sense.

 

[Bread]

The legal recruitment process is excruciatingly bad. I’ve also yet to secure an offer after 4 assessment centres with different firms the last 2 years.

There’s just too much bias involved in interviews that people are rejected because they weren’t ‘liked’. They shouldn’t allow partners or associates to conduct interviews anymore! It’s awful.

May be a controversial take, but fundamentally law firms are partnerships where people work very closely together, so imo it makes sense for lawyers to be involved in the recruitment process and pick whom they find likeable, because at the end of the day they will be working long hours together
Besides, if two people don’t click it’s usually mutual, so these personality-based rejections are probably just steering you towards an environment that is more suited to you! Best of luck for your remaining apps x

 

[marisachr]

Don't know how easy it is to find an answer to my question, but here it goes - are there any firms that often give their paralegals opportunities to convert to TC/recruit their trainees from mostly/some of their paralegal cohort? @Jessica Booker @Ram Sabaratnam @Andrei Radu

 

[Bbhu19]

Feeling super deflated after a WBD PFO had scores of 7677, high intellect & mid numerical.

8887 mid mid PFO for WBD