I got 9977 & high for both verbal and numerical!
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
Is anyone able to get onto the practice Amberjack assessment for SH? It doesn't seem to load for me on my laptop or my phone, wifi or mobile data, Chrome or Safari.
You can research that via here
Hogan Lovells International LLP > England
Benchmarking excellence in law since 1987
Similarly here
Hogan Lovells
Discover where Hogan Lovells are ranked in the UK legal rankings. Visit Chambers and Partners to learn more.
chambers.com
If you click on the different ranked departments in Chambers you can see details about their practice areas, then e.g., commercial litigation they are tier 1 https://chambers.com/legal-rankings...itigation-london-firms-1:2748:11814:1?l=en-GB and you can see the competitors there.
If you go on their website
You can see they have 157 partners in London. And you can read their profiles, filter by practice areas, etc.
Their partner count is likely to reflect where they earn their fees, so a niche area where a firm is Tier 1 is not necessarily the core of that firm's business.
In addition, Hogan Lovells pay well and while they are technically not classified as a Silver Circle firm https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/law-firms/types-of-law-firm/the-silver-circle, they are in reality exactly in that category, so based on size (large intake) , pay, etc., they are competing with firms with similar pay packets and lawyer counts (e.., a US firm who only has 3 trainees would not be a competitor).
Random q has Mishcon stated whether they could reimburse travel to and from the assessment centre (and if not, do you guys think it would be rude to ask) as train ticket prices are through the roof atm lol
Jessica Booker
Legendary Member
TCLA Moderator
Gold Member
Graduate Recruitment
Premium Member
Forum Team
- Aug 1, 2019
- 15,398
- 21,495
It is never rude to ask - the worst they will say is they can't but that does not impact your candidacy in anyway.
I would contact the firm to see whether they do.
"Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss"
Very... interesting read, signed by Donald Trump. It refers to DEI practices at law firms, specifically PW, as discriminatory, signed by the president, these are crazy times. He called it unlawful!
Very... interesting read, signed by Donald Trump. It refers to DEI practices at law firms, specifically PW, as discriminatory, signed by the president, these are crazy times. He called it unlawful!
Congrats to everyone with offers and good luck to everyone waiting!!
I'm in the process of applying to a firm whose vac scheme clashes with the VS I've already secured... I'd still like to apply to this firm, but I wouldn't take their VS over my current offer. I'm worried if I apply for a TC directly I'll be rejected for a lack of legal experience, but the only way to explain applying directly is that I'd prefer a competitor's vac scheme which doesn't sound particularly good (but obvs is some kind of seal of approval nonetheless). Any advice? Should I try and mention my upcoming vac scheme if there's an opportunity, and is there a way to go about explaining why I'm applying directly?
I'm in the process of applying to a firm whose vac scheme clashes with the VS I've already secured... I'd still like to apply to this firm, but I wouldn't take their VS over my current offer. I'm worried if I apply for a TC directly I'll be rejected for a lack of legal experience, but the only way to explain applying directly is that I'd prefer a competitor's vac scheme which doesn't sound particularly good (but obvs is some kind of seal of approval nonetheless). Any advice? Should I try and mention my upcoming vac scheme if there's an opportunity, and is there a way to go about explaining why I'm applying directly?
It’s time for another one of Chris Brown’s very controversial posts. Please do not cancel me on the TCLA forum. Trigger warning: sensitive topics will be addressed. Viewer discretion is strongly advised. 😂
I will never understand Trump’s argument that DEI practices can be discriminatory. Who does he think is being discriminated against? It seems like it’s a very particular demographic of people in the USA that strongly dislike DEI practices and who believe they are somehow being discriminated against. It’s almost like if anyone gets hired who isn’t from that particular demographic, it must automatically mean they are a DEI hire and not the candidate with the best qualifications. 🥲
I thought the entire purpose of DEI was to prevent discrimination in the hiring and employment processes in workplaces? In the past, highly qualified candidates have been prejudiced against solely on the basis of their gender, race, religion, ethnicity, class and socioeconomic background. Even if they were the ideal candidate for the position, inherent biases would influence their employment prospects. 😕
I wonder if US firms will challenge Trump’s decisions and file a huge class action lawsuit. It seems he is simply going after law firms that supported opposing political parties. I’m sure Paul, Weiss was a huge advocate and sponsor for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. I am also fairly certain it’s the same situation for Perkins Coie, who represented Hilary Clinton in 2016 during that presidential campaign. 🤨
Does anyone know whether this US DEI stuff and Trump targeting US law firms will have a knock-on effect on their operations in the UK? In the case of Paul, Weiss, they have only just established a large scale English Law practice and this is their first graduate recruitment cycle. It will be interesting to see everything play out. 😬
I have attached the link to the article below for anyone who wants to read it:
I will never understand Trump’s argument that DEI practices can be discriminatory. Who does he think is being discriminated against? It seems like it’s a very particular demographic of people in the USA that strongly dislike DEI practices and who believe they are somehow being discriminated against. It’s almost like if anyone gets hired who isn’t from that particular demographic, it must automatically mean they are a DEI hire and not the candidate with the best qualifications. 🥲
I thought the entire purpose of DEI was to prevent discrimination in the hiring and employment processes in workplaces? In the past, highly qualified candidates have been prejudiced against solely on the basis of their gender, race, religion, ethnicity, class and socioeconomic background. Even if they were the ideal candidate for the position, inherent biases would influence their employment prospects. 😕
I wonder if US firms will challenge Trump’s decisions and file a huge class action lawsuit. It seems he is simply going after law firms that supported opposing political parties. I’m sure Paul, Weiss was a huge advocate and sponsor for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. I am also fairly certain it’s the same situation for Perkins Coie, who represented Hilary Clinton in 2016 during that presidential campaign. 🤨
Does anyone know whether this US DEI stuff and Trump targeting US law firms will have a knock-on effect on their operations in the UK? In the case of Paul, Weiss, they have only just established a large scale English Law practice and this is their first graduate recruitment cycle. It will be interesting to see everything play out. 😬
I have attached the link to the article below for anyone who wants to read it:
Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
www.whitehouse.gov
Last edited:
lol literally 77 mln Americans voted for Trump, and I feel that what you’ve described is not a controversial take at all, at least in the UK. There is no way this would impact UK hiring though, maximum what’s gonna happen is that US firm are gonna stop advertising DEI on their websites. But that’s already happened.It’s time for another one of Chris Brown’s very controversial posts. Please do not cancel me on the TCLA forum. Trigger warning: sensitive topics will be addressed. Viewer discretion is strongly advised. 😂
I will never understand Trump’s argument that DEI practices can be discriminatory. Who does he think is being discriminated against? It seems like it’s a very particular demographic of people in the USA that strongly dislike DEI practices and who believe they are somehow being discriminated against. It’s almost like if anyone gets hired who isn’t from that particular demographic, it must automatically mean they are a DEI hire and not the candidate with the best qualifications. 🥲
I thought the entire purpose of DEI was to prevent discrimination in the hiring and employment processes in workplaces? In the past, highly qualified candidates have been prejudiced against solely on the basis of their gender, race, religion, ethnicity, class and socioeconomic background. Even if they were the ideal candidate for the position, inherent biases would influence their employment prospects. 😕
I wonder if US firms will challenge Trump’s decisions and file a huge class action lawsuit. It seems he is simply going after law firms that supported opposing political parties. I’m sure Paul, Weiss was a huge advocate and sponsor for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. I am also fairly certain it’s the same situation for Perkins Coie, who represented Hilary Clinton in 2016 during that presidential campaign. 🤨
Does anyone know whether this US DEI stuff and Trump targeting US law firms will have a knock-on effect on their operations in the UK? In the case of Paul, Weiss, they have only just established a large scale English Law practice and this is their first graduate recruitment cycle. It will be interesting to see everything play out. 😬
I have attached the link to the article below for anyone who wants to read it:
Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:www.whitehouse.gov
To clarify
> In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General.
This refers to Jeannie Rhee. She was a part of the Russian 2016 election interference investigation, and joined PW subsequently, in 2019.
The lawsuit referred to is against the Proud Boys & Oath Keepers
This was conducted pro bono by lawyers from PW & Dechert
Trump recently pardoned and/or commuted the sentences of those involved https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/21/proud-boys-oath-keepers-sue-doj/79433208007/
> In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.
This is not accurate
1) 2000 Mark Pomerantz joins PW as partner
2) 2013 MP becomes 'of counsel', no longer partner
3) February 2021 MP takes leave of absence from PW to join NY DA office to prosecute Trump
4) In April 2022 quit NY DA office ending leave of absence PW saying Trump did many felonies, but NY DA doesn't want to prosecute, hence he was resigning, returns to his "of counsel" role (hence not "hired")
5) Jan 2023 Pomerantz opens Free and Fair Litigation Group as an anti-Trump pro bono law firm
6) Feb 2023 Pomerantz publishes People vs. Trump: An Insider's. Account
Pomerantz is 73 years old and I think maybe in 2023 left of counsel at PW.
In May 2024 PW set up The Center to Combat Hate
The website appears to be down.
UK & US DEI practices have differed. For example, US universities discriminated against Asian & white and in favour of black candidates, known as "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination". For example, for Harvard, black students in the 70th-80th percentile of academic ability had a 41% chance of admission, whereas for white students it was 5%, and Asians 4%
This was found to be unconstitutional in 2023 by a partisan Supreme Court (split 6-3 by appointing party).
This has never been legal in the UK: you can only have "positive action".
Also affirmative action was created by Executive Order (of JFK), and they seem to do a lot more on the stroke of the Presidential pen (including/excluding sex in transgender, for example), whereas in the UK a lot of these things historically came from the ECtHR (e.g., the Gender Recognition Act 2004, following Goodwin), EU as well as primary legislation (which seldom gets rolled back).
I read on the news that Goldman Sachs took away its targets to achieve a certain number of partners from a non-white background in the UK after they did in the US. It's definitely a scary reality but unfortunately I think when it comes to organisations with a strong US holding they may do the same in UK operations. Although it's important to say I have yet to see a law firm follow suit.It’s time for another one of Chris Brown’s very controversial posts. Please do not cancel me on the TCLA forum. Trigger warning: sensitive topics will be addressed. Viewer discretion is strongly advised. 😂
I will never understand Trump’s argument that DEI practices can be discriminatory. Who does he think is being discriminated against? It seems like it’s a very particular demographic of people in the USA that strongly dislike DEI practices and who believe they are somehow being discriminated against. It’s almost like if anyone gets hired who isn’t from that particular demographic, it must automatically mean they are a DEI hire and not the candidate with the best qualifications. 🥲
I thought the entire purpose of DEI was to prevent discrimination in the hiring and employment processes in workplaces? In the past, highly qualified candidates have been prejudiced against solely on the basis of their gender, race, religion, ethnicity, class and socioeconomic background. Even if they were the ideal candidate for the position, inherent biases would influence their employment prospects. 😕
I wonder if US firms will challenge Trump’s decisions and file a huge class action lawsuit. It seems he is simply going after law firms that supported opposing political parties. I’m sure Paul, Weiss was a huge advocate and sponsor for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. I am also fairly certain it’s the same situation for Perkins Coie, who represented Hilary Clinton in 2016 during that presidential campaign. 🤨
Does anyone know whether this US DEI stuff and Trump targeting US law firms will have a knock-on effect on their operations in the UK? In the case of Paul, Weiss, they have only just established a large scale English Law practice and this is their first graduate recruitment cycle. It will be interesting to see everything play out. 😬
I have attached the link to the article below for anyone who wants to read it:
Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:www.whitehouse.gov
Thanks, I will take your commentary as building on my previous post because I don't think you've said anything inconsistent with it (unless you think otherwise).
Now, if we want do to discuss what the US DEI experience means for the UK, I think there are two main points to consider (I will assume that my readers are well familiar with the history of DEI in the US). The following is my opinion only.
1. First, the practical/legal impact on recruitment in the UK by US firms, across law, banking, etc.. The US experience will not change the DEI situation in UK graduate recruitment in any meaningful way. This is because it has never been formalised to the extent that it has been in the US in the recruitment/admissions process itself (I'm not talking about Equality Act or anything like that here). The only way the changes in US domestic policies can impact the UK is through the voluntary self-censure of US firms in the UK (suddenly they start talking about DEI much less across all their global offices because they fear action from Trump administration). OR through antitrust enforcement or some other enforcement in the US. However, I believe that the latter is almost impossible because anything like that would not be enforceable in the UK.
2. Will the current American situation change the terms of how the DEI conversation has been playing out in the UK, particularly at US law firms in London? Yes and No. Even if they remove DEI from their websites, I cannot see graduate recruiters in the UK suddenly changing their own beliefs to abide by any law/directive that Trump administration adopts in the US. This is just silly. Of course, there are partner-level appointments, which are usually done by the US main office directly, which means that at that level, yes, DEI will cease to be part of the conversation. But just for as long as Trump's anti-DEI orders are in force. The same probably goes for some of the affinity groups at the associate level but I really doubt they are gonna be dislodged either in the UK or the US.
I agree, and just to add there are differences at a statutory level.
In particular, s 1(1)(f) of the Legal Services Act 2007 has the objective of "encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession".
The SRA was created under the LSA, so it's absolutely woven into the SRA's DNA, and hence the profession as a whole. In addition, DEI policies can help firms avoid discrimination claims under UK law.
I'd add, incidentally, that I don't think graduate recruiters necessarily are very committed to any apparent beliefs: for example, a "well-being ambassador" and HR director at CMS was fired this week after posting "I hate Islam" and similar comments on Twitter. I'm sure he expressed his commitment to diversity in his day job, whereas in reality he (not-so) secretly despised it!
Fundamentally law firms want to make as much money as possible, and the extent to which pro bono, DEI, etc. are there to meet regulatory requirements/improve their brand image, as distinct from something they genuinely believe in, is difficult to prove with any certainty. However, for every Dan Neidle, who has retired from his 7-digit partner role to do something he believes in, there are 500 more partners who keep going 'til retirement, so my money is always on "it's all about the money". And with that said, there doesn't seem to be any money in conspicuously disavowing DEI as a law firm in the UK, and plenty of money in continuing to profess your commitment to it.
Last edited:
Especially the Amberjack squad😭
We studied law to avoid maths💀
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
