There is no issue with withdrawing from a VS after acceptance when you get a better offer - but obviously do so as soon as you have certainty, out of courtesy to others involved. (You might also be able to negotiate to do both schemes, depending on the circumstances.)
-
How confident are you in your knowledge of the core LLB/PGDL subjects, including Contract, Tort, Trusts, Land, Criminal, and Public Law?
TCLA is teaming up with BPP for a free interactive event designed to refresh your fundamentals, especially for those interested in or planning to take the SQE. We'll practise multiple choice SQE questions, with prizes for the highest scoring participants!
Register Here
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
There is no issue with withdrawing from a VS after acceptance when you get a better offer - but obviously do so as soon as you have certainty, out of courtesy to others involved. (You might also be able to negotiate to do both schemes, depending on the circumstances.)
I know this isn’t related to vac schemes (is there a more appropriate thread for this question?) but I’m starting as a paralegal soon and it’ll be my first job/proper work experience, I feel quite out of my depth and am struggling with a little bit of imposter syndrome- worried that I’ll make mistakes/won’t be as good as I hope to be, etc. does anyone have any tips or advice? Thank you!
You will receive proper training to get you up and running, and you'll be suprised how much you willl learn in a month working, it's not as scary as it seems, don't be afraid to ask for help and you'll be an expert in no time
Oh don’t worry about it at all, you’ll get proper training and it’s normal to make mistakes in your first two-three months. It gets better every month and people are very understanding and will guide you. I made lots of mistakes in my first months and people were super helpful whether it’s other paralegals trainees or associates. I understand the imposter syndrome feeling as I felt it until I started going to work for a few days when I started by first legal job and I’m also an international with a different accent but it’s all in our heads, people are usually very sweet and supportive/welcoming and once you start you will be absolutely fine. You will get comfortable very fast and mistakes will reduce everyday, just focus on getting better and make sure you keep a notepad to note down the mistakes the associates tell you about so you don’t repeat them as it’s very easy to forget the points they make especially if it’s your first law job and they may seem minor but it makes a difference overall (I did this and it was very helpful to go back and refer to them when a similar task was given)
Lastly, when you hit the three month mark, you’re already a pro Best of luck to you, you’re gonna ace it!!
Last edited:
From personal experience, I think it does appeal to firms. When I secured my first legal placement, I had no legal work experience and a lot of non legal work experience especially in terms of doing part time roles at uni such as being a customer service advisor, sales assistant, bartender, tutor, then some non legal work experience such as a journalism intern, psychology intern at a hospital, volunteering experience. All the skills I gained could be directly connected to law as well which was a plus and I talked about it in interviews. I think it puts a good impression and shows effort as well as helps in gaining different skills, experiences, meeting new people and handling different situations and roles.
That’s why I believe it’s best to put all experiences down in the application form, even if we think they’re irrelevant, the firms may not feel the same way!!
This isn't entirely related but has anyone who has successfully cold emailed for work experience got any insights on this. I've emailed loads of small firms about summer work experience and every response is ur cv is great but we just don't offer formal work experience. Am I setting myself back by classifying it as work experience? I will do anything even admin jobs I just want to get something on my cv for this summer, so should I word it differently? any advice appreciated I'm a bit lost with all this
Maybe ask if you can shadow someone instead?
I did a few weeks ago, and they said the deadline had just closed and they received sm apps it would take a while for them to get back to people
they said this:
Thank you for your email. The application deadline was 28 February and thousands of applications have been received; these are now under review and we expect to be able to update candidates shortly.
Paul Weiss rejection post-test at 11:10. Finally, after 58 days.
Good thing I don't like private equity. At least I won't have to be complicit with their Trump deal now! 🤣
(No comma in the name for you)
Good thing I don't like private equity. At least I won't have to be complicit with their Trump deal now! 🤣
(No comma in the name for you)
Last edited:
Following your completion of the online test for the Sky Work Placement 2025 we are pleased to confirm that you have been invited to an interview in consideration for this opportunity. Congratulations!
You will be interviewed by someone from the AS team in a group format (3-5 applicants per interview) to determine your interest in the placement, knowledge of Sky including commercial developments, and your motivation to become a lawyer.
Does anyone know how this works, specifically with reference to Aspiring Solicitors' involvement? I am a bit unclear as to why AS would be doing the interviewing rather than Sky?
- Sep 9, 2024
- 689
- 1,254
It is quite hard to make any predictions with a high degree of confidence as this is still very much of a developing situation. While the deals struck by Paul, Weiss, Skadden, and now Willkie and Milbank might seem to indicate this, I do think there are some important reasons to consider to the effect that this will not be as impactful as some think:
- This is primarily a US matter: at least as far as the UK firms are concerned, or at least the UK firms without major operations in the US (although, in my opinion, most of the biggest operations of UK firms are not large enough to become direct targets) this should have no direct impact. Secondly, for US firms themselves, this is primarily a US matter. While their DEI policies are in many cases drafted at a firm-wide level, this used to be the case in a world where it would not be an issue to implement them across the board. Thus, while the language on their webpages and prospectuses may have changed, that does not necessarily imply a policy change across the board. I do not see why they could not in practice keep DEI policies in place in all of their non-US operations - if anything, having them in the UK puts them in a better standing with the current Government. I doubt hiring policies in foreign countries would be a relevant issue for the US Administration to target.
- The details of the deals and general crackdown of DEI are unclear: while many in the press have reacted to the pro bono donation agreements struck by the aforementioned firms as a capitulation and an abandonment to DEI, it is actually not that clear what the details of the deals are. The firms have stated that, as part of the agreements, they commited to complying with Employment law requirements, but what those requirements are vis a vis specific DEI policies is not certain. Some commentators have been arguing that compliance will only require foregoing a particular set of what the US Administration sees as 'exclusionary' policies - such as having recruitment events and other opportunities open exclusively to a given minority group. However, that would not mean any and all consideration of DEI factors and wider contextual data in recruitment is banned.
- The issue is being litigated: Thirdly, while it is the case that these three major firms have struck a deal, a number of smaller but prestigious litigation-focused firms (as of now, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Perkins Coie) are are willing to go to court with the Administration over the executive orders. At the moment, it seems like the litigations are going in their favour, as the orders have been temporarily blocked. When the issue inevitably goes to trial at a higher court, should there be a similar result, it might prompt the larger firms to keep their DEI policies.
- The long-term reaction is unclear: Finally, the current conflict with the Administration is sending shockwaves through the US big law market. Associates at affected firms have expressed discontent and even reigned over the issue, stating that they will not work at an organization which does not share the same values. This could end up causing a problem for recruitment and retention of top talent. Moreover, some argue that this kind of media attention is also bad from a branding perspective, especially on the contentious side of the business, as it might make firms appear insufficiently resilient when in a dispute with the Government. This could potentially have an adverse impact for litigation clients, who could thus be prompted to move the business elsewhere. Whether these predicted long-term consequences come to pass remains to be seen; but if they do, this might once again convince the firms to rethink whether they want to change their DEI policies.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
