Hi Jaysen,
I was just reading Lewis's 6 vacation scheme article, and he stated that he had a tactic of explaining what interested him in a firm.
He mentioned that for some firms there were specific departments that stood out to him.
My question is let us use the above example Addleshaw Goodard's corporate department that stood out to jay, perhaps due to the clients it holds or the deals it does etc. How can a candidate link this with the question - HOW WILL THIS DEPARTMENT HELP HIM?
I understand that due to clients or deals it does it stands out to an applicant - but how does this help the trainee solicitor? why does this make him want to be a part of it?
It is unlikely that a trainee will suddenly be involved in those high profile deals so an applicant saying their strong department which attracts clients means the opportunities to be involved in such deals sounds very superficial.
Disclaimer - The above response is very waffly but I hope you kind of get the gist of what I am trying to say.
You're right, there's often a mismatch between what applicants say they like about a law firm and their explanation of why it interests them.
To be clear, that's not to say it's bad to answer the "Why are you applying to this law firm?" question by using a specific department. To the contrary, it can be a very effective way to differentiate a law firm. You just need to think about how you are using that reason.
The key is to approach the point in reverse. Instead of asking how a department will help you, it's better to start with
why you are interested in a particular department (if you are). You don't need to list all those reasons in your application form, but it will help you get to a genuine answer.
For example, when it came round to vacation scheme applications in my third year of university, I knew I was interested in private equity.
To give you an idea - I still have my mock interview answers from then, which go something like this:
- I felt that it would be better for my training to work with demanding clients who didn't need hand-holding through an M&A deal. It meant as a trainee, I would need to learn fast because they would be the expert on many aspects of a deal.
- PE meant I would be exposed to more M&A and a greater variety of deals because of the faster pace of their investments. I knew after a scheme I liked M&A.
- Working out what makes a company tick was one of the reasons I became interested in business and that's what PE firms do - they identify underperforming companies and turn them around.
Now looking back, I can see some of these are quite naive. But at the time, what mattered was I had identified specific reasons for a particular practice area. So, for this step, Jay should work out why he is interested in corporate law, and that reason should be personal and specific. For example, he could tease out exactly what he likes about company law.
After you've done this, it's easier to answer this question in a convincing way. If you are interested in a particular practice area/sector, it follows that you are going to want to apply to a law firm that excels in that space. For example, if AG has a good corporate department, it may be involved in interesting cross-border deals or attract talented lawyers, which then affects you the quality of your work and the people you learn from. It's at this point that you can use evidence (clients/experience/awards/lateral hires) to back up your point.
Finally, I do agree that mentioning a deal for the sake of it will just be irrelevant, but if you use it as evidence for why the firm is good at XYZ, then that's fine.
If any of the above doesn't make sense, please ask!
