TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[Rob93]

It is under the 'one firm worldwide' ethos homepage, stating that the firm has no satellite office/headquarters as an integrated office

Right so JD really runs this as a USP - I'm not sure how different they really are than some other firms on this point, but it's obviously very important to them.

One thing here is structural - JD operates a unitary partnership, including profit share across borders. Cf. Baker McKenzie, which is similarly globally distributed but operates as a Swiss Verein, with profits siloed by operating entity (usually per jurisdiction).

What proponents of unitary Partnership will tell you is that their model is better because it means that the team in, say, Singapore is fully incentivised to give their all on an instruction originating in, say, Paris. The criticism of the Verein model by contrast is that there is an incentive in each office to prioritise work originated there over work brought in from other offices. Proponents of the Verein will say this problem is overstated, that there's a global commitment to the brand, and the offices aren't siloed for operational purposes. All of this is debatable - JD obviously leans into the unitary model so think through those advantages.

The 'no home office' component follows a related line of argument. There's a perception that the global firms which have grown out of the US and UK are still 'domiciled' in their home country, that they're best suited to work originating in the home country or to be conducted in that home country. This is obviously somewhat true for like, Slaughters and Wachtell, which have minimal global footprints. It is arguably somewhat true for the American PE heavyweights/spec firms, simply because a huge amount of PE work is American capital flowing into int'l businesses - although the UK, Europe and Asia all have their own thriving PE industries, American investment firms loom large.
Firms like JD, W&C, Bakers, (the list goes on) will say 'it doesn't matter where we came from, what matters is where we are and where we're going' - they do not want to be perceived as American firms. This is partly about projecting global competence (we can deal with your problem in any jurisdiction) and partly about appealing to global clients (we are not a local office of a foreign outfit, we are as much part of the legal market of [country] as [notable domestic firm].'

 

[Rob93]

Right so JD really runs this as a USP - I'm not sure how different they really are than some other firms on this point, but it's obviously very important to them.

One thing here is structural - JD operates a unitary partnership, including profit share across borders. Cf. Baker McKenzie, which is similarly globally distributed but operates as a Swiss Verein, with profits siloed by operating entity (usually per jurisdiction).

What proponents of unitary Partnership will tell you is that their model is better because it means that the team in, say, Singapore is fully incentivised to give their all on an instruction originating in, say, Paris. The criticism of the Verein model by contrast is that there is an incentive in each office to prioritise work originated there over work brought in from other offices. Proponents of the Verein will say this problem is overstated, that there's a global commitment to the brand, and the offices aren't siloed for operational purposes. All of this is debatable - JD obviously leans into the unitary model so think through those advantages.

The 'no home office' component follows a related line of argument. There's a perception that the global firms which have grown out of the US and UK are still 'domiciled' in their home country, that they're best suited to work originating in the home country or to be conducted in that home country. This is obviously somewhat true for like, Slaughters and Wachtell, which have minimal global footprints. It is arguably somewhat true for the American PE heavyweights/spec firms, simply because a huge amount of PE work is American capital flowing into int'l businesses - although the UK, Europe and Asia all have their own thriving PE industries, American investment firms loom large.
Firms like JD, W&C, Bakers, (the list goes on) will say 'it doesn't matter where we came from, what matters is where we are and where we're going' - they do not want to be perceived as American firms. This is partly about projecting global competence (we can deal with your problem in any jurisdiction) and partly about appealing to global clients (we are not a local office of a foreign outfit, we are as much part of the legal market of [country] as [notable domestic firm].'

Caveat I am not sure if unitary partnership is a term anyone actually uses I just like it, there may be a more correct term that would be better to use if discussing this on interview.

 

[Jessica Booker]

..........it is sadly quite tempting to make your mind wander towards cynicism when your peers with far less impressive CVs and worse grades seem to breeze through the application process (many of them have shown me their apps, so I am not throwing wild assumptions here).

Recruitment is an art, not a science. Higher grades or more work experience don't equate to more success. There are so many factors that make up an application that you can never truly understand why someone is being chosen over you. The only person who will be able to explain that is the recruiter, and even then it is based on the opinions of people in their firm rather than some form of a completely objective process.

Considering most firms have such a strong focus on improving social mobility too I would encourage you to think about this differently. I would be happy to discuss how I think the Legal Cheek comments are also severely flawed if you would like. But ultimately I would encourage anyone to not take the comments section on LC as a place where you can have a serious and balanced discussion - the website was purposely designed to be controversial and sensational for clickbait purposes.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Recruitment is an art, not a science. Higher grades or more work experience don't equate to more success. There are so many factors that make up an application that you can never truly understand why someone is being chosen over you. The only person who will be able to explain that is the recruiter, and even then it is based on the opinions of people in their firm rather than some form of a completely objective process.

Considering most firms have such a strong focus on improving social mobility too I would encourage you to think about this differently. I would be happy to discuss how I think the Legal Cheek comments are also severely flawed if you would like. But ultimately I would encourage anyone to not take the comments section on LC as a place where you can have a serious and balanced discussion - the website was purposely designed to be controversial and sensational for clickbait purposes.

I hope if the community does continue with this conversation that we keep things respectful.

We encourage diverse opinions in this forum, but I would encourage everyone to consider how their posts could be construed when writing on such a contentious topic - it is likely to raise some emotive responses and therefore I would encourage people to consider why people might have a different perspective or how you might read something differently to the next person.

 

[YUKI1201]

Hi all!
I'm drafting my WC cover letter and was wondering if I could apply the same strategy which I used for personal statement for FF (15% why law, 15% why firm and 70% why me)? Or is cover letter essentially different from PS in terms of structure, tone, etc.?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi all!
I'm drafting my WC cover letter and was wondering if I could apply the same strategy which I used for personal statement for FF (15% why law, 15% why firm and 70% why me)? Or is cover letter essentially different from PS in terms of structure, tone, etc.?

Your strategy of what you include really depends on the other information you are providing in the rest of the application. Try to think of your application not only as its individual component parts, but also the information you present as a whole. That might mean that you actually have a different approach between cover letters.

 

[Rob93]

Hi all!
I'm drafting my WC cover letter and was wondering if I could apply the same strategy which I used for personal statement for FF (15% why law, 15% why firm and 70% why me)? Or is cover letter essentially different from PS in terms of structure, tone, etc.?

I don't think there's really a fundamental difference except that a cover letter will usually be addressed in some way whereas a personal statement you just get straight to it (cover letters similarly should be signed off, personal statements need not be).

 

[Dwight]

When I'm reading about private equity, I'm getting slightly confused about the term 'private equity house'. Is it just another phrase for 'private equity firm'?

With that said, if 'private equity house' = 'private equity firm' then when the former term is used a distinction is made between private equity firm and a private equity fund, right? This would be because the Firm and the Fund are completely different? This brings me to another point, which is that when we talk about PE firms, like TPG capital, where exactly is the PE fund in the situation. Are the PE funds created by these PE firms, and where do they stand when talking from a company structure point of view?

Anyone with the knowledge, would really appreciate some clarification!

@Daniel Boden - I've tagged you here as I am aware that you are very interested in private equity.

 

[Zubin]

Is this for the spring scheme ?

Summer scheme

 

[JayB]

PM me, happy to talk about my experience!

Thank you! Will do

 

[JayB]

Anyone heard back from HSF on their summer VS?

Yes me 😊

 

[Zubin]

I’ve got my wg feedback (I emailed to request it), nothing back on status of the app though

Hello! Just clarifying - is this a separate report from the Capp assessment report detailing your strengths? Do they give you your actual score?

Thanks!

 

[m2001]

Yes me 😊

Congrats! May I ask when you applied please?

 

[Rob93]

When I'm reading about private equity, I'm getting slightly confused about the term 'private equity house'. Is it just another phrase for 'private equity firm'?

With that said, if 'private equity house' = 'private equity firm' then when the former term is used a distinction is made between private equity firm and a private equity fund, right? This would be because the Firm and the Fund are completely different? This brings me to another point, which is that when we talk about PE firms, like TPG capital, where exactly is the PE fund in the situation. Are the PE funds created by these PE firms, and where do they stand when talking from a company structure point of view?

Anyone with the knowledge, would really appreciate some clarification!

@Daniel Boden - I've tagged you here as I am aware that you are very interested in private equity.

A PE house is a PE firm, funds are basically discrete pools of investment capital set up and managed by the firm.

I'm more familiar with the corporate side of PE than the fund side, so the rest of what I'll write is probably not a perfect explanation but I don't think anything is outright wrong (happy to take correction, however).

Funds will be set up as limited partnerships or similar, and are basically the nexus of time-limited commitments, by a defined set of investors, to contribute a defined amount of capital over the life of the fund.

Investors (and the PE house) own stakes in the fund, and the fund owns the various topcos set up to make investments, which in turn own the midcos, which own the bidcos which own the opcos.

Sometimes individual investors who are already involved in the fund will make additional investments in a given acquisition and invest at topco, but that's entirely distinct from their investment in the fund.

All of this is set up to be very tax efficient.

 

[Rob93]

Hello! Just clarifying - is this a separate report from the Capp assessment report detailing your strengths? Do they give you your actual score?

Thanks!

Yes, on request Links will provide a separate report on your WG performance.

They'll tell you your percentile (you did as well as or better than [X]% of the control group). Take this with a grain of salt, as the control can vary widely - an identical score on an identical test can yield different percentile results depending on the control group.

 

[golden99]

Hello! Just clarifying - is this a separate report from the Capp assessment report detailing your strengths? Do they give you your actual score?

Thanks!

Yep, they gave me my percentile

 

[Zubin]

Yes, on request Links will provide a separate report on your WG performance.

They'll tell you your percentile (you did as well as or better than [X]% of the control group). Take this with a grain of salt, as the control can vary widely - an identical score on an identical test can yield different percentile results depending on the control group.

Awesome, thanks!

 

[Zubin]

Hi all! Quick question others are probably also wondering.

I have progressed to AC/Interview at several firms, many of which recycle their application questions each year. I'm wondering how graduate recruitment ordinarily feels towards applicants who recycle their answers to those same questions when reapplying the following cycle?

If my answers were strong enough to progress past application screening, and it was simply my performance at interview/AC which let me down from progressing further, is it fine to reuse those answers?

I acknowledge that, in relation to "greatest innovation"/"new technology"/"current commercial issue" questions, these will evolve with time, and likely cannot be recycled year on year.

Thanks!

 

[Audrey219]

Wondering if anyone has heard back from Irwin Mitchell yet?
I completed the VI at the beginning of December and then there's been nothing.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi all! Quick question others are probably also wondering.

I have progressed to AC/Interview at several firms, many of which recycle their application questions each year. I'm wondering how graduate recruitment ordinarily feels towards applicants who recycle their answers to those same questions when reapplying the following cycle?

If my answers were strong enough to progress past application screening, and it was simply my performance at interview/AC which let me down from progressing further, is it fine to reuse those answers?

I acknowledge that, in relation to "greatest innovation"/"new technology"/"current commercial issue" questions, these will evolve with time, and likely cannot be recycled year on year.

Thanks!

I would always recommend refining and updating your application answers for things that are not static. That will include your career motivation and also possibly any competency answers, as you may now have stronger examples.

I also think you can always go back and critically evaluate what you write to see if it can be written in a more concise/persuasive/well structured/accurate way.