TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[DoNotRedeem]

Has anyone heard from K&S DTC?

 

[Harvey Specter - Presiding Partner]

Has anyone heard from Bakers or SH post app for DTC? Idk if I can assume they’re PFOs yet…​

 

[gayathri28]

Has anyone heard from Bakers or SH post app for DTC? Idk if to assume if they’re PFOs yet…​

Haven't heard anything from baker yet :/

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Has anyone done a VS AC before and also done a TC AC before? Was there a substantial difference in your experience/ what you feel they're looking for? Any advice on how to do well for DTC ACs despite having failed VS ACs?

Feel free to DM too - happy to hear from different perspectives and experiences!

(because I assume at VS ACs, they're more willing to take a risk on a candidate because there is a 2 week "interview" (VS) afterwards right? is the DTC AC higher standards?)

Hey!

I have done both, and I would say that DTC AC's typically do have a higher benchmark as the firm isn't able to assess you over an extended period of time like a VS. This can sometimes mean that the standard of performance is higher, and I have found that they usually include additional tasks as well (to assess you across more competencies).

With a vacation scheme AC, as you mentioned, the firm knows that they'll have a couple of weeks to get to know you, so there is sometimes a bit more room for potential. They can see how you work in practice, how you take feedback, and how you develop over time. With a DTC AC, they don't have that follow-up period, so they are usually looking for things to come across more clearly on the day.

In practical terms, I found that this means your answers need to be more polished and well-formed. Your motivations should feel really clear and backed up with evidence (e.g. why commercial law, why this firm, why you), your competency examples should be a bit more developed and structured, and your commercial awareness should come across in a more practical and applied way - instead of just showing that you know what is going on, you need to be able to explain why it matters for clients or the firm. They aren't expecting lots of legal experience, but they are expecting you to show how your experiences have made you suited to the role of a trainee solicitor at this specific firm.

On the VS vs DTC point, I do think it is fair to say that firms can take slightly more of a "wait and see" approach with vac schemes, whereas with DTC they need to be a bit more confident upfront. However, I don't think that means that the bar is wildly different, and plenty of people who don't convert a VS AC go on to succeed at a DTC AC (myself included - and I don't think of myself as particularly confident in those sorts of assessments!).

If you have had a VS AC that didn't go your way, I always found that these were really valuable in shaping how I prepared for the next one. Things such as being more structured, more concise, and a bit more deliberate in how you link your answers back to the firm and its work are all little things that can make a huge difference. There is absolutely no reason why you would fail to convert a DTC AC just because you might not have converted a VS AC in the past - different firms have different benchmarks, and it might just be that you weren't the right fit at the time (+ you might be for this firm!).

I hope that offers an alternative perspective, but happy to chat about it further if you have any other questions!

 

[Bah Bah Pink Sheep]

Hey!

I have done both, and I would say that DTC AC's typically do have a higher benchmark as the firm isn't able to assess you over an extended period of time like a VS. This can sometimes mean that the standard of performance is higher, and I have found that they usually include additional tasks as well (to assess you across more competencies).

With a vacation scheme AC, as you mentioned, the firm knows that they'll have a couple of weeks to get to know you, so there is sometimes a bit more room for potential. They can see how you work in practice, how you take feedback, and how you develop over time. With a DTC AC, they don't have that follow-up period, so they are usually looking for things to come across more clearly on the day.

In practical terms, I found that this means your answers need to be more polished and well-formed. Your motivations should feel really clear and backed up with evidence (e.g. why commercial law, why this firm, why you), your competency examples should be a bit more developed and structured, and your commercial awareness should come across in a more practical and applied way - instead of just showing that you know what is going on, you need to be able to explain why it matters for clients or the firm. They aren't expecting lots of legal experience, but they are expecting you to show how your experiences have made you suited to the role of a trainee solicitor at this specific firm.

On the VS vs DTC point, I do think it is fair to say that firms can take slightly more of a "wait and see" approach with vac schemes, whereas with DTC they need to be a bit more confident upfront. However, I don't think that means that the bar is wildly different, and plenty of people who don't convert a VS AC go on to succeed at a DTC AC (myself included - and I don't think of myself as particularly confident in those sorts of assessments!).

If you have had a VS AC that didn't go your way, I always found that these were really valuable in shaping how I prepared for the next one. Things such as being more structured, more concise, and a bit more deliberate in how you link your answers back to the firm and its work are all little things that can make a huge difference. There is absolutely no reason why you would fail to convert a DTC AC just because you might not have converted a VS AC in the past - different firms have different benchmarks, and it might just be that you weren't the right fit at the time (+ you might be for this firm!).

I hope that offers an alternative perspective, but happy to chat about it further if you have any other questions!

Thank you sooo much Abbie! That makes sense - I think it's just difficult for me to see what I need to improve on and where the bar is at (so that I can try hit it aha) and whether my current approach is enough... or if I need a complete rehaul etc.

(How I wish the firm could let me do a test run hahaha like how you can do practice driving tests or smth aha)

I guess the best I can do is try my best and just keep building upwards. Do you think my age + inexperience can work against me? Do they look for more mature personalities (less adolescent-like or naive ish? not sure how to put it) as they cannot assess you for longer and because most of the other DTC candidates will be older and more experienced? I'm scared I (or my personality) might stick out like a sore thumb haha...

Especially for group exercises - I've only worked with seniors at a 'hierarchy level' - as in, them as the leader/ manager/ exec committee, and never at a 'peer level'. I'm a bit scared I'll default to the "respect your elders/seniors" narrative or just not be able to contribute as I won't have enough experience to follow what they are saying or recommend something on par with their level. I might be overthinking this but I'm just not sure what the group dynamic will be like if I'm with people a good few years older than me!

---> I've only completed one group exercise this cycle (didn't pass that AC) and there was 1 paralegal and 1 graduate in our group - even that was difficult because I found that us students (3 or 4 of us) struggled to assert ourselves or contribute insightfully (the graduates did very well, spoke a lot, had very deep insights etc.) - the difference in levels of experience was very visible! I suppose this is something I need to build, but I'm not too sure how to go about it! I wish there were an "in-person group exercise practice club" somewhere haha.

Sorry for the long post! Any perspective would help greatly - thank you againn

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Thank you sooo much Abbie! That makes sense - I think it's just difficult for me to see what I need to improve on and where the bar is at (so that I can try hit it aha) and whether my current approach is enough... or if I need a complete rehaul etc.

(How I wish the firm could let me do a test run hahaha like how you can do practice driving tests or smth aha)

I guess the best I can do is try my best and just keep building upwards. Do you think my age + inexperience can work against me? Do they look for more mature personalities (less adolescent-like or naive ish? not sure how to put it) as they cannot assess you for longer and because most of the other DTC candidates will be older and more experienced? I'm scared I (or my personality) might stick out like a sore thumb haha...

Especially for group exercises - I've only worked with seniors at a 'hierarchy level' - as in, them as the leader/ manager/ exec committee, and never at a 'peer level'. I'm a bit scared I'll default to the "respect your elders/seniors" narrative or just not be able to contribute as I won't have enough experience to follow what they are saying or recommend something on par with their level. I might be overthinking this but I'm just not sure what the group dynamic will be like if I'm with people a good few years older than me!

---> I've only completed one group exercise this cycle (didn't pass that AC) and there was 1 paralegal and 1 graduate in our group - even that was difficult because I found that us students (3 or 4 of us) struggled to assert ourselves or contribute insightfully (the graduates did very well, spoke a lot, had very deep insights etc.) - the difference in levels of experience was very visible! I suppose this is something I need to build, but I'm not too sure how to go about it! I wish there were an "in-person group exercise practice club" somewhere haha.

Sorry for the long post! Any perspective would help greatly - thank you againn

Hey!

No worries at all, and I do completely get why this is playing on your mind - I think it is really difficult to know what "good" looks like for any AC, but particularly for DTC ones.

On the benchmark point, I think one of the trickiest parts of ACs is that there isn't always a fixed bar that you can clearly see and aim for, as most firms will measure different things. However, in reality, firms aren't expecting the most experienced or the most polished candidate in absolute terms (even for DTC) - they are looking for someone who can communicate clearly, show good judgment, and demonstrate potential. This tends to matter a lot more than having loads of experience or being able to answer a commercial question instantly. I also found that the small things (i.e. greeting everyone, being friendly to everyone you meet, encouraging those around you, etc.) all make a big difference too, and I think it is one of the main things I did differently in my DTC AC (as I was slightly less nervous than my other ACs).

On age and maturity, I know it is easier said than done, but I would try not to worry about it in the way you are framing it. Maturity in these settings usually comes across through how you interact - things such as being thoughtful, composed, and respectful. These all usually matter more than how old you are or how much experience you have. You don't need to sound overly formal or experienced, as long as you are clear and professional. Whilst I appreciate a lot of people that apply for DTC are graduates/those with legal experience, everyone in my Reed Smith DTC was a graduate or current student - it isn't necessarily always people with years of paralegal experience! I don't think firms are necessarily looking for a more 'mature' or 'experienced' candidate in their DTC applications - as it is a training contract, they'll often look for those who are proactive, eager, willing to learn and open to feedback.

I'd also say that the group exercise dynamic that you described is very normal. It is easy to feel like graduates or those with legal experience are performing better because they speak more or sound more confident, but assessors aren't just rewarding whoever talks the most or has the most experience. They are usually looking at how you contribute to the group as a whole, which can be through offering ideas, but equally through things like structuring the discussion, building on someone else's point, asking a useful question, or helping the group make a decision. It is important to remember that even if you feel like you don't know as much as the paralegals/graduates due to not having the experience, you have also made it to the AC stage because you are more than capable - the graduate recruitment team wouldn't have invited you if you weren't!

You don't need to match their level of experience to add value, and strong candidates are sometimes those that help make the discussion more structured and focused, rather than those who contribute the more complex points. Things such as summarising where the group has got to, or gently bringing the conversation back to the task, are really valuable ways to show that you work well in a team beyond contributing ideas.

On the concern about defaulting to a "respect seniors" mindset, I totally get that and I think it is good that you are aware of it. However, in this setting, you're all peers! You can still be polite and collaborative while putting your views forward - it is less about trying to dominate the discussion, and more about actively and clearly participating in the group.

In terms of improving, I have found that it is rarely about completely changing your approach and small adjustments tend to have the biggest impact (e.g. contributing a bit earlier, structuring your points more clearly, being slightly more concise, or making sure you are linking what you are saying back to the task or client). Those kinds of tweaks often just help make sure that your contributions land much more strongly, rather than altering the substance of your contributions altogether. I also would've benefitted from a practice environment for group discussions last cycle, haha! I did find that informal conversations with my friends and those around me (e.g. discussing a commercial topic) can help you get more comfortable with contributing to a commercial conversation in a group setting, so it might be worth giving that a try if you can't arrange a more formal practice!

You definitely aren't alone in feeling this way, and you'll probably find that the graduates/paralegals feel imposter syndrome too - particularly if they are surrounded by second-year or third-year students! One group exercise doesn't determine your overall ability, and I always found that the more I completed, the more confident I got in contributing to the discussion

 

[studentgrad]

I did almost all the SJT and practice practice tests available on firm and free websites, like that of Links, CC, etc. One thing that's helped me is to always have a note of what the firm is looking for in front of you during the test, so you can answer after looking at those, so whenever I answered I evaluated it against the criteria they provided. MB helped since it's untimed but I think once you get familiar, it becomes easier to do it even under time pressure. I did mess up the VIs though so I guess you take what you can get.

Hi thanks for sharing. I ask this in general for doing SJTs in general.
When you mention what the firm is looking for do you mean the values of the firm? OR do you mean literally "grit" or "creative force" and a "digital mindset" etc. Are you sitting the test thinking what does the question want me to show, and then choosing the option/answer that fits with this/their values/a specific quality/attribute?

 

[Bah Bah Pink Sheep]

Hey!

No worries at all, and I do completely get why this is playing on your mind - I think it is really difficult to know what "good" looks like for any AC, but particularly for DTC ones.

On the benchmark point, I think one of the trickiest parts of ACs is that there isn't always a fixed bar that you can clearly see and aim for, as most firms will measure different things. However, in reality, firms aren't expecting the most experienced or the most polished candidate in absolute terms (even for DTC) - they are looking for someone who can communicate clearly, show good judgment, and demonstrate potential. This tends to matter a lot more than having loads of experience or being able to answer a commercial question instantly. I also found that the small things (i.e. greeting everyone, being friendly to everyone you meet, encouraging those around you, etc.) all make a big difference too, and I think it is one of the main things I did differently in my DTC AC (as I was slightly less nervous than my other ACs).

On age and maturity, I know it is easier said than done, but I would try not to worry about it in the way you are framing it. Maturity in these settings usually comes across through how you interact - things such as being thoughtful, composed, and respectful. These all usually matter more than how old you are or how much experience you have. You don't need to sound overly formal or experienced, as long as you are clear and professional. Whilst I appreciate a lot of people that apply for DTC are graduates/those with legal experience, everyone in my Reed Smith DTC was a graduate or current student - it isn't necessarily always people with years of paralegal experience! I don't think firms are necessarily looking for a more 'mature' or 'experienced' candidate in their DTC applications - as it is a training contract, they'll often look for those who are proactive, eager, willing to learn and open to feedback.

I'd also say that the group exercise dynamic that you described is very normal. It is easy to feel like graduates or those with legal experience are performing better because they speak more or sound more confident, but assessors aren't just rewarding whoever talks the most or has the most experience. They are usually looking at how you contribute to the group as a whole, which can be through offering ideas, but equally through things like structuring the discussion, building on someone else's point, asking a useful question, or helping the group make a decision. It is important to remember that even if you feel like you don't know as much as the paralegals/graduates due to not having the experience, you have also made it to the AC stage because you are more than capable - the graduate recruitment team wouldn't have invited you if you weren't!

You don't need to match their level of experience to add value, and strong candidates are sometimes those that help make the discussion more structured and focused, rather than those who contribute the more complex points. Things such as summarising where the group has got to, or gently bringing the conversation back to the task, are really valuable ways to show that you work well in a team beyond contributing ideas.

On the concern about defaulting to a "respect seniors" mindset, I totally get that and I think it is good that you are aware of it. However, in this setting, you're all peers! You can still be polite and collaborative while putting your views forward - it is less about trying to dominate the discussion, and more about actively and clearly participating in the group.

In terms of improving, I have found that it is rarely about completely changing your approach and small adjustments tend to have the biggest impact (e.g. contributing a bit earlier, structuring your points more clearly, being slightly more concise, or making sure you are linking what you are saying back to the task or client). Those kinds of tweaks often just help make sure that your contributions land much more strongly, rather than altering the substance of your contributions altogether. I also would've benefitted from a practice environment for group discussions last cycle, haha! I did find that informal conversations with my friends and those around me (e.g. discussing a commercial topic) can help you get more comfortable with contributing to a commercial conversation in a group setting, so it might be worth giving that a try if you can't arrange a more formal practice!

You definitely aren't alone in feeling this way, and you'll probably find that the graduates/paralegals feel imposter syndrome too - particularly if they are surrounded by second-year or third-year students! One group exercise doesn't determine your overall ability, and I always found that the more I completed, the more confident I got in contributing to the discussion

Thank you SO so so much Abbie! Honestly, I appreciate the time and the thoughtful and thorough answer! I definitely think I'm overthinking things haha.

I'll be sure to take all of your advice onboard and do my best to go in there with confidence! I guess I should go in with the mindset that this is no different to any other AC I've done, but I just need to have polished my skills a bit more before then haha

Thanks again Abbie and I hope you have a good rest of the evening/night!