TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[TheSaulGoodman]

DACB vi - all hope is not lost

 

[Ijustwanttobealawyer]

Does anyone know if Sullivan & Cromwell DTC recruit on a rolling basis?

 

[Shaky_Pete]

Hey!

Congratulations on the AC invite (+ upcoming vacation scheme)!!

I'd say it is completely fine to mention the upcoming vacation scheme if it comes up, but I wouldn't try to force it into conversation (although I appreciate it is an achievement!).

If you are asked something along the lines of "where else have you applied?", you should definitely answer honestly and disclose the vacation scheme. It is a positive sign that you have already secured a vacation scheme, as it shows that you are a competitive applicant, and trying to hide it might be a bit unnatural (particularly if it comes up directly).

That said, I can appreciate why you are concerned about the "scattergun" risk. I was in a similar situation where I had applied to lots of commercial/corporate firms, but had also previously completed a vacation scheme at a private client firm - it is mainly about how you frame those applications. I'd answer honestly about why you have applied to different types of firms, and you might discuss things such as:

• You have explored different firms to properly understand where your interests lie / keep an open mind
• Your interest in this firm is still clear and specific, and you can back up your motivations with evidence from past experiences
• There is a logical thread across the firms (e.g. culture, training style, exposure to clients, etc.)

You don't need to over explain the differences between firms, and I would try to follow a clear structure for your reasoning - for example, that the vacation scheme will help you develop your understanding, but that you are particularly drawn to Firm X too for Y reasons.

I found that it was all about balancing being open and honest about your experiences, but also keeping your answers anchored in why this firm specifically appeals to you. As long as you have clear and tailored motivations for the firm that you have an AC at, mentioning that you have a vacation scheme at a different kind of firm won't undermine your application.

Best of luck with your AC and your vacation scheme, I'm sure you'll do great!!

Thanks very much Abbie - appreciated!

 

[soph107048]

Hi guys, this is kind of random but would anyone say that taking a student law clinic module in final year is valuable for commercial law as well? I’ve got quite a bit of commercial law experience anyway and my other 2 modules would be very commercially focused, but am considering taking the law clinic module as a third one instead of a third commercially focused module as I am quite keen on advocacy work. It seems like it’d be great client facing and practical experience, but unsure if i’d be sacrificing anything by not taking a third “commercial” module

 

[soph107048]

No worries!

I think it's tricky to say definitively whether it would negatively impact your chances - I would assume that if they allow you the time to go to the interview, they won't take it into account when making TC decisions. I ultimately didn't end up receiving a TC offer after my second summer VS, but there were clear reasons for this in my feedback based on the assessed tasks in the scheme. The only element of the scheme that I missed due to attending the interview was time in my 'base department' with my supervisor, and my overall supervisor feedback was strong, so I think it is unlikely it had an impact on my conversion chances.

That said, I totally get being concerned that it might subconsciously impact your chances in some way, so I would encourage you to think about what you are comfortable with doing. I mainly asked the second VS firm whether I could attend the final TC interview as I had really enjoyed my first summer VS and didn't want to lose that opportunity - however, if I wasn't so keen, I might've not attended it in favour of the second scheme.

It is a stressful situation to be in, so I'd definitely take the time to think through your options. However, I'd try to take comfort in the fact that you are clearly a strong candidate (given all these opportunities), and I'm sure that whatever you choose will work out!

hey Abbie, i understand you’ve shared quite a few conversion tips, but I wanted to ask if theres any specific “mistakes” or things you know/were told in your feedback that would have otherwise have helped convert your schemes? Would be super grateful for any pointers of things to do/avoid in assessed tasks

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi guys, this is kind of random but would anyone say that taking a student law clinic module in final year is valuable for commercial law as well? I’ve got quite a bit of commercial law experience anyway and my other 2 modules would be very commercially focused, but am considering taking the law clinic module as a third one instead of a third commercially focused module as I am quite keen on advocacy work. It seems like it’d be great client facing and practical experience, but unsure if i’d be sacrificing anything by not taking a third “commercial” module

Hey!

I don't think taking a law clinic module will be a drawback at all, and it can add something quite valuable that purely commercial modules don't always give you! I chose a student law clinic module in my final year instead of completing a dissertation, and I have talked about it so much in interviews and vacation schemes (+ probably more than I would've discussed a commercial module).

From a commercial law perspective, firms really value practical and client-facing experience. A clinic module shows that you can communicate with clients, manage expectations, and think about legal issues in a real-world context, which is directly relevant to commercial law. It also gives you good examples to draw on in applications and interviews, especially around teamwork, problem-solving, etc. It can also really help when it comes to backing up your motivations for working in law - for example, I always used to discuss my experience working in the legal clinic when I would discuss how I enjoyed the client-facing aspect of legal work.

As you already have a good amount of commercial law experience and are still taking two commercially-focused modules, you aren't really sacrificing gaining knowledge in that area. If anything, you are broadening your skill-set!

Personally, I would definitely encourage you to pick it if you are interested in advocacy work and/or want to gain practical experience. My law clinic module was my favourite module in final year, and I definitely learnt a lot from it!

 

[AReza]

Does anyone have any CMS AC insights, please? Any general tips on how to prep for the case study and group exercise are also very welcome!! TOA

 

[rrr]

@Ijustwanttobealawyer Okay. Thank you for your reply.

you've heard from them as in other than inviting you to the immersive assessment?

 

[rrr]

Did anyone else so the Mayer Brown immersive assessment? Can't seem to find people saying much. Need to know whether to cry.

 

[CharlieandLola]

Does anyone know whether you can apply for Sullivan & Cromwell DTC if you also applied for their vac scheme?

 

[WillKitchen]

I was asked an interesting question during a law firm interview recently, and I'd be curious to know how other people might approach it...

The question was along the lines of: "If you were asked to support a client that worked in an ethically controversial, but legal, business, would you say yes?" There was nothing more specific than this, and so we had an opportunity to talk it through in front of the interviewers.

Obviously, the right and sensible answer to this, for pretty much everyone, I guess, would be: "It depends". It depends on what the client does. Their business could be anything from family planning to online betting apps, advertising CBD to manufacturing nuclear missiles. Some businesses are much more "ethically controversial" than others, and people will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs and values. So it depends on (1) the character of the client's business, (2) how we personally feel about that specific activity, and (3) - for bonus points! - how it might affect the reputation of our law firm, relations to other clients, etc.

Now, saying the above is a pretty good answer to give in an interview, I think. But the interviewers wanted more than "It depends"; they pushed for a "yes" or "no", and - given the lack of any further information in order to make an informed decision - I went for "no".

How would you have responded to this question?

I see the logic in asking it, and the choice of answer is probably less important than the thinking out loud that comes before it. But do law firms look for people who play safe (and say "no" when faced with insufficient info), or display a willingness to support clients from any legally valid business (and say "yes").

 

[helenaskelton]

Anyone else get a bit tired / burnt out when it’s super sunny and nice outside? I’ve completely stalled on all DTC apps as my vac scheme apps were all done and I honestly just wanted a break. I’ve made a start on DTC but just couldn’t bring myself to finish any. Instead I booked a holiday. Normally I spend my annual leave applying to stuff but for some reason now I’ve just decided to stop. Hopefully I’ll be a bit more motivated when I’m back LOL.

 

[Bread]

I was asked an interesting question during a law firm interview recently, and I'd be curious to know how other people might approach it...

The question was along the lines of: "If you were asked to support a client that worked in an ethically controversial, but legal, business, would you say yes?" There was nothing more specific than this, and so we had an opportunity to talk it through in front of the interviewers.

Obviously, the right and sensible answer to this, for pretty much everyone, I guess, would be: "It depends". It depends on what the client does. Their business could be anything from family planning to online betting apps, advertising CBD to manufacturing nuclear missiles. Some businesses are much more "ethically controversial" than others, and people will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs and values. So it depends on (1) the character of the client's business, (2) how we personally feel about that specific activity, and (3) - for bonus points! - how it might affect the reputation of our law firm, relations to other clients, etc.

Now, saying the above is a pretty good answer to give in an interview, I think. But the interviewers wanted more than "It depends"; they pushed for a "yes" or "no", and - given the lack of any further information in order to make an informed decision - I went for "no".

How would you have responded to this question?

I see the logic in asking it, and the choice of answer is probably less important than the thinking out loud that comes before it. But do law firms look for people who play safe (and say "no" when faced with insufficient info), or display a willingness to support clients from any legally valid business (and say "yes").

I think that questions like this are less about the actual answer and more about how you reason your answer tbh

 

[a114]

I was asked an interesting question during a law firm interview recently, and I'd be curious to know how other people might approach it...

The question was along the lines of: "If you were asked to support a client that worked in an ethically controversial, but legal, business, would you say yes?" There was nothing more specific than this, and so we had an opportunity to talk it through in front of the interviewers.

Obviously, the right and sensible answer to this, for pretty much everyone, I guess, would be: "It depends". It depends on what the client does. Their business could be anything from family planning to online betting apps, advertising CBD to manufacturing nuclear missiles. Some businesses are much more "ethically controversial" than others, and people will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs and values. So it depends on (1) the character of the client's business, (2) how we personally feel about that specific activity, and (3) - for bonus points! - how it might affect the reputation of our law firm, relations to other clients, etc.

Now, saying the above is a pretty good answer to give in an interview, I think. But the interviewers wanted more than "It depends"; they pushed for a "yes" or "no", and - given the lack of any further information in order to make an informed decision - I went for "no".

How would you have responded to this question?

I see the logic in asking it, and the choice of answer is probably less important than the thinking out loud that comes before it. But do law firms look for people who play safe (and say "no" when faced with insufficient info), or display a willingness to support clients from any legally valid business (and say "yes").

I'd probably go for yes tbh. Completely agree on reasoning per personal values, reputation etc.

Me personally I think I'd reach a point where if it's legal it's in play, it's not for us to apply a moral or ethical consideration to people's business, lifestyle or whatever. There'll definitely be exceptions but with the insufficient info like you say, I would generalise to a yes.

Not sure what the firm would go for, it's deliberately open to see the thought process I guess - in reality i'm sure they would care deeply about the firm's reputation but everyone has a number that could bend their values I think...

 

[summersun]

I was asked an interesting question during a law firm interview recently, and I'd be curious to know how other people might approach it...

The question was along the lines of: "If you were asked to support a client that worked in an ethically controversial, but legal, business, would you say yes?" There was nothing more specific than this, and so we had an opportunity to talk it through in front of the interviewers.

Obviously, the right and sensible answer to this, for pretty much everyone, I guess, would be: "It depends". It depends on what the client does. Their business could be anything from family planning to online betting apps, advertising CBD to manufacturing nuclear missiles. Some businesses are much more "ethically controversial" than others, and people will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs and values. So it depends on (1) the character of the client's business, (2) how we personally feel about that specific activity, and (3) - for bonus points! - how it might affect the reputation of our law firm, relations to other clients, etc.

Now, saying the above is a pretty good answer to give in an interview, I think. But the interviewers wanted more than "It depends"; they pushed for a "yes" or "no", and - given the lack of any further information in order to make an informed decision - I went for "no".

How would you have responded to this question?

I see the logic in asking it, and the choice of answer is probably less important than the thinking out loud that comes before it. But do law firms look for people who play safe (and say "no" when faced with insufficient info), or display a willingness to support clients from any legally valid business (and say "yes").

During a VS last year the firm mentonied they were acting kind of like a Doctor and the client was the one choosing which decision to make (as long as it's legal obv) and so I took as that firm would have prefered a yes than a no to that question. The goal of a firm is to make money so I would keep that in mind. Also just like a criminal deserve a lawyer I (personally) have the view that everyone deserve legal representation. But personally I would not do a secondment to these types of businesses.
If a fim advertise itself as very environmentally friendly I might say no to matters than would go against the advertised value but that's pretty much it.
But as other people have mentioned I think your reasoning will be what matters the most.

 

[CGPULAW]

Anyone heard from Haynes Boone yet?

 

[Prudentia]

I was asked an interesting question during a law firm interview recently, and I'd be curious to know how other people might approach it...

The question was along the lines of: "If you were asked to support a client that worked in an ethically controversial, but legal, business, would you say yes?" There was nothing more specific than this, and so we had an opportunity to talk it through in front of the interviewers.

Obviously, the right and sensible answer to this, for pretty much everyone, I guess, would be: "It depends". It depends on what the client does. Their business could be anything from family planning to online betting apps, advertising CBD to manufacturing nuclear missiles. Some businesses are much more "ethically controversial" than others, and people will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs and values. So it depends on (1) the character of the client's business, (2) how we personally feel about that specific activity, and (3) - for bonus points! - how it might affect the reputation of our law firm, relations to other clients, etc.

Now, saying the above is a pretty good answer to give in an interview, I think. But the interviewers wanted more than "It depends"; they pushed for a "yes" or "no", and - given the lack of any further information in order to make an informed decision - I went for "no".

How would you have responded to this question?

I see the logic in asking it, and the choice of answer is probably less important than the thinking out loud that comes before it. But do law firms look for people who play safe (and say "no" when faced with insufficient info), or display a willingness to support clients from any legally valid business (and say "yes").

I would have said yes, provided the business is operating legally. As a lawyer, my role is not to make moral judgments on behalf of society, but to ensure clients act within the law and understand their risks. Every person is also entitled to legal advice, even if they’re guilty. In fact, ethically complex clients often need the most careful legal advice to ensure compliance and avoid harm.

That said, I would want to understand the nature of the client’s activities and any reputational or regulatory risks to the firm. If there were concerns that conflicted with firm policy or my own professional obligations, I would raise them appropriately. But it’s not within my gift to turn down clients who are operating legal businesses purely because I don’t morally agree with them.

 

[DoNotRedeem]

I was asked an interesting question during a law firm interview recently, and I'd be curious to know how other people might approach it...

The question was along the lines of: "If you were asked to support a client that worked in an ethically controversial, but legal, business, would you say yes?" There was nothing more specific than this, and so we had an opportunity to talk it through in front of the interviewers.

Obviously, the right and sensible answer to this, for pretty much everyone, I guess, would be: "It depends". It depends on what the client does. Their business could be anything from family planning to online betting apps, advertising CBD to manufacturing nuclear missiles. Some businesses are much more "ethically controversial" than others, and people will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs and values. So it depends on (1) the character of the client's business, (2) how we personally feel about that specific activity, and (3) - for bonus points! - how it might affect the reputation of our law firm, relations to other clients, etc.

Now, saying the above is a pretty good answer to give in an interview, I think. But the interviewers wanted more than "It depends"; they pushed for a "yes" or "no", and - given the lack of any further information in order to make an informed decision - I went for "no".

How would you have responded to this question?

I see the logic in asking it, and the choice of answer is probably less important than the thinking out loud that comes before it. But do law firms look for people who play safe (and say "no" when faced with insufficient info), or display a willingness to support clients from any legally valid business (and say "yes").

I would say yes, it isn't your job to judge the clients business.

 

[ipfan]

Hi All. Out of curiosity, is there anyone that got through to the final round of interviews for Bristows that has still NOT had their final interview scheduled? Trying to figure out if they're still interviewing.

Hi, I had my interview yesterday, but they said at the end that they still had a fair few interviews left to do over the next week or two!

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

hey Abbie, i understand you’ve shared quite a few conversion tips, but I wanted to ask if theres any specific “mistakes” or things you know/were told in your feedback that would have otherwise have helped convert your schemes? Would be super grateful for any pointers of things to do/avoid in assessed tasks

Hey!

This is a really good question, and I think my post-VS feedback was probably one of the most useful things for improving (+ definitely helped with my DTC AC). Most of my feedback will be specific to the individual tasks that I completed during my schemes, so I apologise if any are not relevant - hopefully there are some useful pointers though!

For me, I'd say the main themes were quite practical rather than anything fundamentally wrong. For example, one of the biggest points was that I didn't ask enough questions or show enough curiosity about my supervisor's work and career. This was during my first vacation scheme, and I think was a bit too conscious about not wanting to pester or interrupt, but I realised afterwards that being curious is exactly what they are looking for. Things such as taking an active interest, asking how they got into law, what they are working on, or why they made certain career decisions are all genuinely encouraged, and I'd use the VS to get to know your supervisors and trainee buddy. On my later schemes, I made an effort to schedule a separate coffee chat with my supervisor so that I could have half an hour or so to ask them questions about their journey into law, rather than just asking them questions about the tasks that I'd been set for that week.

Another point that came up in a commercial exercise was that I leaned too heavily into the legal analysis. The feedback was that my arguments were strong, but I hadn't focused enough on the commercial side of the discussion. For some context, the task was a discussion with a partner and a member of the graduate recruitment team about a commercial topic, and I think I defaulted to "law mode" rather than thinking about things such as business impact and client priorities. I had chosen a commercial topic that related to a module I was currently studying at uni, so I think that's where my mistake came from! A good way to avoid this in any commercial-based task is to consciously ask yourself things like:

• What does this mean for the client commercially?
• What are the risks, costs, and strategic implications?
• How might this impact their next steps moving forward?

You can then try to bring those ideas into your answers alongside the legal points.

In terms of interviews, I generally scored okay overall (which, to me, was quite surprising!), but I was told that I spoke too quickly (which was less surprising ). This is something that I have always struggled with, but it definitely made me a lot more conscious of pacing - I would definitely recommend deliberately slowing down and pausing between points to ensure that you speak at a much more steady pace. For me, I didn't have many pacing issues when practising at home, as there wasn't the nerves/anxiety that you feel in an actual interview. Therefore, when in the interview, I would just try to mentally remind yourself every so often to keep an eye on your pace when answering.

For written exercises, one thing that I would really emphasise is making sure that you cover all the key points in the materials and that you stick to a clear and logical structure. It sounds really simple (+ I am usually quite good at keeping things structured), but under time pressure it is easy to miss things or lose clarity in your answer. Therefore, I would quickly plan your answer first (even if it is just bullet points) and track the key issues as you go through the materials, and then leave a couple of minutes at the end to make sure that you have addressed everything that stood out to you.

More generally, I would say that performance can be quite assessment or firm specific. For example, in my spring VS I scored highest overall in the written task, but my supervisor feedback was that I needed to ask more questions and engage more with the team. Then in my second summer scheme, it was almost the reverse - my written exercise was weaker, but I had strong supervisor feedback. Therefore, it is often about trying to be consistent across all of the areas, rather than relying on one strength. I think one of my downfalls in the later schemes is that I spent less time preparing/practicing things like written exercises as I already felt confident in them, but this meant I might have been a bit rusty! I'd treat every element that you are assessed on as equally important and make sure that you feel confident in each of them throughout the scheme.

I hope that provides some insights, and just shout if you have any other questions! Best of luck with any upcoming VS!