Training Contracts for Beginners

[Marco Mendola]

What type of work were you doing in the other jurisdiction?

Training solicitor equivalent (2 years completed) - Praticante Avvocato in Italy.

 

[Jaysen]

Training solicitor equivalent (2 years completed) - Praticante Avvocato in Italy.

OK great. You have enough experience to apply directly to training contracts (especially because you have experience in the UK, which you can use to demonstrate your motivation for working here). Just check the firms to make sure they are open to direct training contract applications/whether they recruit mainly from vacation schemes.

In terms of deciding between the two, it's preference really.

If you want to experience a firm first, then go for a vacation scheme. You should also have an easier time securing one (the interview threshold should be lower), although you'll still have to prove yourself on the vacation scheme.

On the other hand, if you just want to get started, I'd focus on direct training contract applications.

I know a lot of people here have gone down different routes so they may be able to comment also.

 

[AJ]

Good morning everyone!
I need your opinion guys. A bit of background: I am a mature candidate with years of experience in another jurisdiction and a couple of years of experience in the UK with legal support roles. My goal is to get a training contract offer in the South West (Bristol Area). Do you think I should still apply for vacation schemes or probably directly to Training Contract applications?
Generally, I understand that vacation scheme candidates are more successful, but could you please share your experience with my case?
Many thanks,
Marco

Sound advice from @Jaysen. I think the choice is entirely subjective and down to your preference.

Just to note, sometimes the decision will be made for you. For example, where law firms specify the only way to get a TC is through a VS.

Given your experience and the time of year with many/most VS applications closed, it maybe worth applying for direct TCs. But perhaps worth refining your work experience sections considerably to stress your skills and experience, so as to make up for lack of VSs(assuming you haven’t already done any), as some firm may (unfairly) be strict on this point. If you are unfortunately unsuccessful then at least you have some good template answers for VS answers on the next cycle.

 

[kikigoh]

Hope I'm not too late to the bandwagon! I'm currently applying to a mid-size law firm for a TC and one of the questions asks 'what's the biggest opportunity for mid-size law firms'. Would appreciate your replies as I'm currently stuck

 

[Jaysen]

Hope I'm not too late to the bandwagon! I'm currently applying to a mid-size law firm for a TC and one of the questions asks 'what's the biggest opportunity for mid-size law firms'. Would appreciate your replies as I'm currently stuck

What thoughts have you got so far?

 

[kikigoh]

What thoughts have you got so far?

I was thinking:
1. Merge for a sustainable, longer-term business model
2. Recognise leading firms' clients dissatisfactions and find ways to build their reputation, brand and capabilities to be considered as credible alternatives.
3. Specialise in niche expertise.

Are these good points?

 

[Jaysen]

I was thinking:
1. Merge for a sustainable, longer-term business model
2. Recognise leading firms' clients dissatisfactions and find ways to build their reputation, brand and capabilities to be considered as credible alternatives.
3. Specialise in niche expertise.

Are these good points?

All seem like credible arguments you can make. In your answer, just be sure you are writing about why XYZ is an opportunity. The way the points are phrased at the moment come across a bit more like responses rather than opportunities (but that may just be the way I'm interpreting them).

Otherwise, the important part is the way you justify your answers. For example, if you went for the first one (which I agree with), you might want to consider why you think mergers are an opportunity for mid sized law firms and not just a survival response? And do you think this applies to all mid-sized law firms?

 

[kikigoh]

All seem like credible arguments you can make. In your answer, just be sure you are writing about why XYZ is an opportunity. The way the points are phrased at the moment come across a bit more like responses rather than opportunities (but that may just be the way I'm interpreting them).

Otherwise, the important part is the way you justify your answers. For example, if you went for the first one (which I agree with), you might want to consider why you think mergers are an opportunity for mid sized law firms and not just a survival response? And do you think this applies to all mid-sized law firms?

Thank you, I find that really helpful!