-
🚨 Reed Smith has just announced its Direct Training Contract route!
The deadline is 20th June.
👉 Read Becca's announcement post here
📝 Apply directly here
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
@Jessica Booker would working in a high street firm as a paralegal until applications open up again be a mad move in terms of motivations. I have been applying for those instead of commercial law firms as I feel like it would offer a better balance to manage with application season? thank you
does anyone have insights into the faegre drinker VI interview? thanks very much!
No, it can be outstanding, practical experience. That's how I started my legal career. I was able to work closely with a partner on deals and could sell 'why law/why a particular' much better
While I probably wouldn't bring it up in interviews unsolicited, the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland is important for employment law and also for businesses providing services such as toilets, changing rooms, etc.
Here is the judgment
which provides that references to sex in the Equality Act refer to biological sex.
Gender recognition certificates were introduced in 2004 following the ECtHR decision in Goodwin v UK. Goodwin complained of ECHR article 8 (private life) and 12 (right to marry) violations. At the time there were neither same-sex marriages nor civil partnerships in the UK. In addition, there was no right to change birth certificates and other official documentation to reflect a gender change
A gender recognition certificate has the effect of allowing one to change the sex on one's birth, death and marriage certificate. The GRA 2004 says that "for all purposes", a person's gender becomes the acquired gender. FWS were litigating whether this meant that a person's acquired gender entitled them to be treated as of the acquired sex. The Supreme Court determines that it does not, and that the Equality Act's references to sex discrimination apply on the basis of biological sex only. Within this context, it's important to note that a person's perceived sex, race or other protected characteristic still engages discrimination law, so if someone discriminates against a biologically male transwoman whom they perceive to be female, on the basis of perceived female sex, that is discrimination just as much as if that person were in fact biologically female.
Schedule 3 of the Equality Act provides that sex discrimination might be permitted to provide separate or single-sex services if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as well as for privacy, etc. Therefore, service providers and employers can now exclude people who are, or whom they perceive to be, biologically female from male toilets and similar services. In addition, Workplace Regulations provide that employers must provide single-sex or individual private facilities, and therefore where employers do not separate these on the basis of biological sex, they are at risk of discrimination and/or harassment challenge
This is discussed here
A case discussed there is Earl Shilton v Miller, where Ms Miller was told to use male toilets which contained a urinal, which was less favourable treatment and hence sex discrimination.
There is thus a risk for service providers who choose not to pursue the allowed direct sex discrimination of separating services by sex but instead making them open to people based on gender identity that they will be sued by users for indirect sex discrimination. For example, a woman who uses a "single gender" toilet might claim that she feels humiliated by the presence of a biological male, and sue for compensation; the Vento bands start at £1200. Indirect discrimination (EA s 19) is allowed when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but we don't know yet know whether providing mixed-sex toilets on the basis of gender identity would be that.
There is another good article here https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex by Michael Foran, who was quoted in the SC judgment.
Here is the judgment
which provides that references to sex in the Equality Act refer to biological sex.
Gender recognition certificates were introduced in 2004 following the ECtHR decision in Goodwin v UK. Goodwin complained of ECHR article 8 (private life) and 12 (right to marry) violations. At the time there were neither same-sex marriages nor civil partnerships in the UK. In addition, there was no right to change birth certificates and other official documentation to reflect a gender change
A gender recognition certificate has the effect of allowing one to change the sex on one's birth, death and marriage certificate. The GRA 2004 says that "for all purposes", a person's gender becomes the acquired gender. FWS were litigating whether this meant that a person's acquired gender entitled them to be treated as of the acquired sex. The Supreme Court determines that it does not, and that the Equality Act's references to sex discrimination apply on the basis of biological sex only. Within this context, it's important to note that a person's perceived sex, race or other protected characteristic still engages discrimination law, so if someone discriminates against a biologically male transwoman whom they perceive to be female, on the basis of perceived female sex, that is discrimination just as much as if that person were in fact biologically female.
Schedule 3 of the Equality Act provides that sex discrimination might be permitted to provide separate or single-sex services if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as well as for privacy, etc. Therefore, service providers and employers can now exclude people who are, or whom they perceive to be, biologically female from male toilets and similar services. In addition, Workplace Regulations provide that employers must provide single-sex or individual private facilities, and therefore where employers do not separate these on the basis of biological sex, they are at risk of discrimination and/or harassment challenge
This is discussed here
For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers: four lessons for employers
Author: David Green, Head of 12KBW Employment Team Oh good. Another article about For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. One week on from the Supreme Court delivering its judgment, I am unconvinc…
12kbwemploymentlaw.wordpress.com
A case discussed there is Earl Shilton v Miller, where Ms Miller was told to use male toilets which contained a urinal, which was less favourable treatment and hence sex discrimination.
There is thus a risk for service providers who choose not to pursue the allowed direct sex discrimination of separating services by sex but instead making them open to people based on gender identity that they will be sued by users for indirect sex discrimination. For example, a woman who uses a "single gender" toilet might claim that she feels humiliated by the presence of a biological male, and sue for compensation; the Vento bands start at £1200. Indirect discrimination (EA s 19) is allowed when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but we don't know yet know whether providing mixed-sex toilets on the basis of gender identity would be that.
There is another good article here https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex by Michael Foran, who was quoted in the SC judgment.
Hey! Winston & Strawn Interview later this week. I was wondering who the firms main competitors are generally and especially with regards to International Arbitration and M&A work for PE funds. I was also wondering if anyone could provide more insight into the firm's position in the market. Thanks a ton for the help!
Last edited:
Hey @Andrei Radu! What do you think are the differences in structure (if any) when answering why commercial law in a cover letter vs in an application form question with a 250/300 word limit? Would love to know your thoughts! Thanks 
Hi everyone,
I’m in the very fortunate position of having been offered training contracts at Freshfields, Weil, Slaughters and White & Case. I've narrowed it down to Freshfields and White & Case, but I’m having a really hard time deciding between the two.
I know both firms are outstanding, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time at each, I genuinely feel I’d fit in well at either. I have an interest in arbitration and litigation, though I appreciate that these interests may evolve over time.
In the longer term, I’d love to become a KC and solicitor advocate, with the potential-ambitious as it may be-of possibly joining the judiciary one day. I know it’s not the traditional route but I also know of a few solicitors who’ve taken this path.
With that in mind, I’d really appreciate any insights or advice anyone might have about which offer to accept.
Thanks all!
I’m in the very fortunate position of having been offered training contracts at Freshfields, Weil, Slaughters and White & Case. I've narrowed it down to Freshfields and White & Case, but I’m having a really hard time deciding between the two.
I know both firms are outstanding, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time at each, I genuinely feel I’d fit in well at either. I have an interest in arbitration and litigation, though I appreciate that these interests may evolve over time.
In the longer term, I’d love to become a KC and solicitor advocate, with the potential-ambitious as it may be-of possibly joining the judiciary one day. I know it’s not the traditional route but I also know of a few solicitors who’ve taken this path.
With that in mind, I’d really appreciate any insights or advice anyone might have about which offer to accept.
Thanks all!
Firstly, huge congrats on securing TC offers from all these firms. That is some GOATed stuff right there my friend! 🐐
In terms of your question, I think Freshfields is the strongest out of these firms for dispute resolution (litigation and arbitration). I think Freshfields is also really strong at M&A, Private Equity, Restructuring, Competition Law and Life Sciences (Band 1 on Chambers & Partners). 🙂
I imagine since Freshfields has a 8-seat TC, you can explore more practice areas. I guess it depends on how varied your interests are. I vaguely remember there is a KC lawyer at Freshfields (Will Thomas KC) who specialises in arbitration and public international law. 😅
In terms of your question, I think Freshfields is the strongest out of these firms for dispute resolution (litigation and arbitration). I think Freshfields is also really strong at M&A, Private Equity, Restructuring, Competition Law and Life Sciences (Band 1 on Chambers & Partners). 🙂
I imagine since Freshfields has a 8-seat TC, you can explore more practice areas. I guess it depends on how varied your interests are. I vaguely remember there is a KC lawyer at Freshfields (Will Thomas KC) who specialises in arbitration and public international law. 😅
Last edited:
Suffering from success wowww congrats
As a fellow enjoyer of disputes i’d choose w&c, not on any intellectual, well thought out consideration of pros + cons, going off pure vibes 🤝
Very similar trainee retention rates, quality of work, international opportunities and (bad) work/life balance with those firms, but at w&c you’d perhaps be doing work that’s a bit more engaging as there are fewer trainees as US firms usually have more of a learn by doing vib
Although might want to consider the fact US firms are on a bit of a mad one right now though with trump in office
I assumed they meant Greenberg Traurig as their interviews were recently held
- Sep 9, 2024
- 756
- 1,401
I think the cover letter answer provides you with different word limit constraints but also gives you a lot more flexibility in navigating that. If the word cap is a lot higher (I have seen firms accept two page cover letters or up to 1500 words) this will simply mean you can discuss your interest in commercial law in a lot more depth. Thus, instead of a simple structure involving a statement of two/three reasons and working through two/three examples to illustrate them, you might afford to take a more narrative approach, giving a historical overview of the development of your interest. This could also enable you to draw comparisons with other career paths you considered when making your choice, potentially making your analysis more compelling.Hey @Andrei Radu! What do you think are the differences in structure (if any) when answering why commercial law in a cover letter vs in an application form question with a 250/300 word limit? Would love to know your thoughts! Thanks
If the word count limit is similar or lower, you will still have a degree of flexibility. For instance, if you have to fit everything into 900 words, this would prima facie come up to around 300 for each of the three major sections (Why commercial law, Why you, Why the firm). However, there is no strict rule that they should be evenly proportioned. If you think your 'Why commercial law' section would benefit a lot more from an extra 50 words than you 'Why me' section, there is no issue going for a 350:250 split.
Finally, an final important point regarding difference in structure for the cover letter answer is its interconnectedness. You may think that since the cover letter answers the same questions as the application form does, there should not be much of a difference. Nonetheless, in my opinion, the format of the cover letter invites you to provide one coherent whole, whereas the application form section-by-section answers are meant to be treated separately. For the cover letter you therefore want to think about how the different sections interact and what are their common points to make sure the entire answer has a proper 'flow'. Thus, it is a lot more important to ensure there are no repetitions or apparent contradictions in your writing.
- Sep 9, 2024
- 756
- 1,401
If becoming a KC is your main goal Freshfields is probably the better bet. Both firms are really strong in international arbitration but Freshfields generally edges White & Case for other types of contentious work. Furthermore, Freshfields is definitely the more historical brand name in England and probably still has greater prestige associated with it in the eyes of older barristers.
If becoming a KC is more of a 'I would love it if this happened but it is not my no 1 career priority' type of consideration, you should take a broader look when comparing the firms. For instance, at White & Case for instance you will arguably get more early responsibility, international exposure, and better compensation, and those considerations might very reasonably sway you.
Great, thanks Andrei - this is very helpful!
- Sep 9, 2024
- 756
- 1,401
I know they focus more on the lower/mid-market segment in PE, where main US-based competitors would be Goodwin, Jones Day, Akin, and McDermott. Generally, I think Legal 500 will be quite helpful for this kind of more granular comparisons, as they divide up practice areas in more narrow market segments.
- Sep 9, 2024
- 756
- 1,401
Hi @Meghna and huge congratulations for getting to the final stage 🥳 ! My best advice for preparation is presented in a step by step manner in the Complete Competency Interview Guide. It describe the approach that secured me an offer 4/4 times I implemented it.
gutted, didnt get anything at all and now looking down the barrel of having nothing planned for next year. What should I do at this point? Start applying for masters? Just do the SQE without a training contract lined up? Would really appreciate some guidance x
If the firm have offered to reimburse travel costs is it normal to request this before or after the event?
Congratulations! Do you know if more invites are expected to be sent out this week?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
