TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2024-5

[futuretraineesolicitor]

how many questions at most should we ask partners, grad rec and trainees at an ac, i was thinking 2 for partners and grad rec but more for trainees since we are also going to have lunch + meet and greet with them. thoughts @Amma Usman thanks.

 

[Jessica Booker]

how many questions at most should we ask partners, grad rec and trainees at an ac, i was thinking 2 for partners and grad rec but more for trainees since we are also going to have lunch + meet and greet with them. thoughts @Amma Usman thanks.

In an interview or a 1-2-1 assessment where they ask you if you have any questions. Plan to ask two as a minimum but have 3-4 up your sleeve.

If you have other opportunities to ask questions throughout the day, then there really isn’t any limit to the questions you can ask, it’s more about just allowing other people to ask questions/not dominating the conversation as it’s likely you’ll be networking in small groups.

 

[Amma Usman]

Holding myself accountable (Reed Smith application)

CC* ✅📝❌
HSF ✅📝❌
NRF ✅📝❌
Weil ✅❌
Akin ✅❌
Sidley ✅❌
Orrick ✅❌
Willkie ✅🎥❌
Cooley ✅❌
Latham ✅❌
Milbank ✅❌
Kirkland ✅❌
Dechert ✅❌
Ashurst* ✅📝
Skadden ✅❌
Goodwin ✅❌
Covington ✅❌
Linklaters* ✅📝❌
Paul, Weiss ✅❌
Slaughters* ✅❌
Freshfields* ✅📝❌
Fried Frank* ✅
Reed Smith* ✅
Gibson Dunn ✅❌
Macfarlanes* ✅📝
White & Case ✅❌
Morgan Lewis ✅📞❌
Paul Hastings* ✅
White & Case* ✅
Morgan Lewis* ✅
Hogan Lovells* ✅📝❌
Cleary Gottlieb ✅❌
A&O Shearman ✅📝❌
Vinson & Elkins ✅❌
Arnold & Porter ✅❌
Baker McKenzie ✅📝❌
King & Spalding* ✅❌
Winston & Strawn ✅❌
Morrison Foerster ✅❌
Sullivan & Cromwell ✅❌
Sullivan & Cromwell* ✅
Stephenson Harwood* ✅

Key: ✅ = application submitted; 📝 = test received; 📞 = TI; 🎥 = VI; ❌ = rejection.

*Training Contract applications.

And this is what this forum is all about! Thank you @Tintin06 for consistently sharing your progress and keeping yourself accountable - that is, arguably, the most important part of it all - accountability. I am personally very inspired by this, and I’m sure so are many of our members.

You are going great places, and I just know your journey is going to be amazing. Best wishes

 

[Amma Usman]

how many questions at most should we ask partners, grad rec and trainees at an ac, i was thinking 2 for partners and grad rec but more for trainees since we are also going to have lunch + meet and greet with them. thoughts @Amma Usman thanks.

This is a really good question. I had wondered about it a lot whilst applying. I later realised the number doesn’t really matter (at least in an interview-specific scenario). You can ask one really good question at the end, that ends the interview with a bang. For me, I found this was not the questions I had prepped in advance. I found that those pre-prepared questions were a bit generic and not tailored to the specific needs of the situation and/or my interviewer or their work. Of course, you can read up on all practices ( for example ) and find niche questions to ask, to still be prepared. Though, the softness in the conversation came from me asking the interviewers what their thoughts on a subject matter was (like a case study we discussed or something of that sort). It made the conversation two-way and less formal, which you would sometimes like to do (or at least find a stringent balance), to attain formality whilst still coming off as personable. So, in short, prepare your questions for the full-range of possible interviewers and scenarios, but be prepared to step away from them to build better rapport.

Side note - I fell into the trap of asking generic questions that could easily be found online. Specificity and adequate research are key. If you can easily find the answer online, chances are that there is a better question to ask.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

This is a really good question. I had wondered about it a lot whilst applying. I later realised the number doesn’t really matter (at least in an interview-specific scenario). You can ask one really good question at the end, that ends the interview with a bang. For me, I found this was not the questions I had prepped in advance. I found that those pre-prepared questions were a bit generic and not tailored to the specific needs of the situation and/or my interviewer or their work. Of course, you can read up on all practices ( for example ) and find niche questions to ask, to still be prepared. Though, the softness in the conversation came from me asking the interviewers what their thoughts on a subject matter (like a case study we discussed or something of that sort). It made the conversation two-way and less formal, which you would sometimes like to do (or at least find a stringent balance), to attain formality whilst still coming off as personable. So, in short, prepare your questions for the full-range of possible interviewers and scenarios, but be prepared to step away from them to build better rapport.

Side note - I fell into the trap of asking generic questions that could easily be found online. Specificity and adequate research are key. If you can easily find the answer online, chances are that there is a better question to ask.

thanks for your response, Amma.

 

[User5678]

Sharpe Pritchard Watson Glaser test invite

Has anyone else got this? Grad rec said link email will follow soon so just want to check if someone got the email yet as I have t received it!

 

[Amma Usman]

Can someone please advise on this - I am soon to be a graduate, so I have applied for numerous paralegal and legal assistant roles. I have experience at a range of law firms (although not necessarily city/commercial), completed a vacation scheme last year and have volunteered at a law clinic as well. I have been rejected so far from all or ghosted, with some recruiters not even replying back. Has anyone had similar experiences like this or recommend that I do something differently?

I am really sorry about the PFOs. They are a natural part of the journey, and please do not let it keep you down. The paralegal market is really competitive, but nothing you can’t handle. Keep applying, keep refining your approach. Ask yourself… are there any gaps in my application strategy and/or knowledge, and how can I fill in these gaps? This is a question I had frequently asked myself. For example, whether it’s tailoring your cover letter to the specific notes in the job description, speaking very concisely in written formats, or even backing up your points with vivid examples from your past work experiences. The specificity needed to succeed in written applications/cover letters should not be underestimated. For me, I found that saying things such as ”As noted in the job description, typical tasks include X. Whilst I have not done this specifically, I have done Y, which is quite similar in Z respects. In that capacity, I did ABC, which demonstrated my ability to EFG - a key skill needed for success in this role“.

I also recommend applying beyond private practice for these paralegal roles. My main reason for saying this is that you will be able to sit on the business/client‘s side and see how thing operate, ultimately helping you craft better applications. For example, in-house roles, Legal Assistant roles, ALSPs, and so on. Even if the role is not paralegal, and you intern at, say, a private equity firm, you can tie that experience to wanting to train at a transactional focused law firm, when applying for TCs. Now, on the other side of the spectrum, say you find from that experience you want to go into disputes. You can say that through working at X PE firm, you saw transactional matters first hand. But, through taking part in X (disputes related matters), you found that you want to explore this more. The point being here is that any experience you get can help you show demonstrated interest - any experience at all. So, please, do not let the PFOs from the paralegal roles keep you down. You are doing an amazing job.

 

[Amma Usman]

Hiya @BobThebIlly

First off, well done on those impressive scores for assumptions (88%) and evaluating arguments (100%). Those are fantastic and show you’ve really nailed those sections! Let’s focus on the “drawing conclusions” part and see how you can improve in the short time you have.

The Watson Glaser tests your ability to draw conclusions in two specific sections - the deduction section, as well as the inference section.

Deductions: This section tests your ability to make a deduction. With deductions, you are trying to find what follows absolutely and necessarily from the premises you are given, and just assume that all those premises are true. For example:

• Premise 1: All cats have whiskers
• Premise 2: Ram is a cat (this premise is false, but for the purpose of your deduction just assume it's true)
• Conclusion: Ram has whiskers

Notice that, in the above argument, if you assume the initial premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and absolutely. This reflects the way you should be 'drawing conclusions' in the deduction section.

The inference section, by contrast, tests your ability to draw conclusions in more probabilistic ways. They are not asking you to identify what follows absolutely or necessarily. Rather, they involve asking what conclusions are probable or strongly suggested by the evidence though not certain (e.g. follow strongly). For the purposes of the inference section, there are two styles of reasoning that you should become familiar with:

1. Inductions: Imagine you’re a scientist studying bird migration. Over the course of several years, you observe that geese in a particular region always migrate south during the winter. Based on these repeated observations, you draw the conclusion "Geese in this region migrate south every winter." This is a good conclusion to draw because it's based on consistent and repeated evidence. However, it’s not certain (there could be a year when some geese don’t migrate for an unexpected reason, like illness or environmental changes). Induction involves drawing conclusions to make predictions about the future or generalisations about a group based on observed patterns. To understand whether an inference is a strong one, you'll also want to familiarise yourself with the ways people get inductions wrong. These include, but are not limited to:
   • Overgeneralising: This occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion based on too few examples. For instance, seeing two aggressive dogs and concluding that all dogs are aggressive is an overgeneralisation. The sample size is too small to justify the conclusion.
     
     
   • Sampling Bias: Drawing conclusions from an unrepresentative sample can lead to faulty reasoning. For example, surveying only a small group of people from one region and assuming their preferences reflect an entire population’s preferences is misleading.
     
     
   • Ignoring Counterexamples: Inductive reasoning requires considering exceptions, but people sometimes disregard counterexamples that weaken their conclusions. For instance, concluding that "all swans are white" without accounting for black swans ignores evidence that challenges the generalisation. Pay attention to whether the question stem and information you're being offered provides any potential counter evidence.
     
     
   • Confusing causation and correlation: People often assume that because two things happen together, one causes the other. For example, observing that ice cream sales increase in summer alongside shark attacks might lead someone to wrongly conclude that eating ice cream causes shark attacks. In reality, both are linked to a third factor: hot weather.
2. Abductions: This involves selecting the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. For example, if you find fur on your couch and a chewed slipper, you might reasonably conclude that your dog is responsible. While other explanations are logically possible (e.g. such as a neighbour's cat sneaking into your house unnoticed to chew the slipper and shed fur on the couch) - these are far less plausible, especially if you have a dog at home. Abductive reasoning is particularly useful in situations where the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. It allows us to make practical, reasonable conclusions by focusing on the explanation that best fits the facts. This approach is commonly used in problem-solving, diagnosing issues, and decision-making, as it prioritises what is most likely rather than what is merely possible.

Appreciating these different ways of 'drawing a conclusion' is important because you want to ensure that you're using the appropriate form of reasoning depending on the section you're working on. Mistaking one for another can lead to choosing the wrong answers in that section.

Hope this helps and my apologies in advance for the length of my reply!

Sharpe Pritchard Watson Glaser test invite

Has anyone else got this? Grad rec said link email will follow soon so just want to check if someone got the email yet as I have t received it!

Congratulations! I have quoted a past post from @Ram Sabaratnam to help with this.

 

[User5678]

Congratulations! I have quoted a past post from @Ram Sabaratnam to help with this.

This is so helpful, thank you Amma

This week has been positive for me as I’ve progressed to next stages for 4 firms, keeping my fingers crossed🤞🏻

 

[Amma Usman]

This is so helpful, thank you Amma

This week has been positive for me as I’ve progressed to next stages for 4 firms, keeping my fingers crossed🤞🏻

Ayyy love this for you! Let us know if you have any specific questions for any of them !!!

 

[Tintin06]

And this is what this forum is all about! Thank you @Tintin06 for consistently sharing your progress and keeping yourself accountable - that is, arguably, the most important part of it all - accountability. I am personally very inspired by this, and I’m sure so are many of our members.

You are going great places, and I just know your journey is going to be amazing. Best wishes

Thank you.

 

[lawzade02]

Hi everyone! Does BCLP review DTC applications on a rolling basis? Thank you!

 

[desperateTCseeker1998]

Hi all, I'm excited to share that we have opened a Direct TC route at Reed Smith! We are accepting applications from gradates (including those due to graduate this summer). The deadline is 20th June and we are recruiting on a rolling basis. If you have any questions, feel free to visit our AMA thread here.

Apply here.

This is so exciting Becca! I got to VI stage for the vac scheme this cycle but would’ve definitely applied for the direct TC instead if I knew it was an option, can I still apply? I am assuming yes as it was not previously known that the direct route was an option…

 

[Chris Brown]

This is so exciting Becca! I got to VI stage for the vac scheme this cycle but would’ve definitely applied for the direct TC instead if I knew it was an option, can I still apply? I am assuming yes as it was not previously known that the direct route was an option…

I think people can apply to either the VS or the Direct TC (one application per cycle):
​

Hello @ReedSmithBecca
I wonder if it is possible for those who unsuccessfully applied for VS to reapply for TC this cycle?

No, it is the same initial application process as the Vacation Scheme, so candidates can apply to either the Vac Scheme or TC in an academic year. Sorry.

 

[ReedSmithBecca]

This is so exciting Becca! I got to VI stage for the vac scheme this cycle but would’ve definitely applied for the direct TC instead if I knew it was an option, can I still apply? I am assuming yes as it was not previously known that the direct route was an option…

No, as outlined on the application form, candidates can only apply to one Early Careers role per cycle. This is because the initial application stages (including VI) are exactly the same process and marked on the same criteria. I appreciate that you may have decided to apply to the TC vs the Vac Scheme if it had been an option at the time, but the outcome would have been the same since it is exactly the same application process. It's a positive development that we've been able to open this additional route in response to business needs, but we need to ensure it's a fair process and so can't allow previous candidates to apply again in the same academic year.

 

[PQ]

Hi everyone! Does anyone know how long White & Case takes to respond post VI. This is for DTC. Thank you!

 

[AlegalA]

Hi, I'm completing an Accurate pre-employment screening check. I'm currently trying to do the activity/work experience section. Am I supposed to put in all my work experience (as I did in my app) including various online internships (eg Legal cheek) or would putting only my paid jobs in there be sufficient? I need to put my activity history for the past 5 years, so idk if I'm meant to put EVERYTHING or at least one activity that covers the last 5 years?

I hope that makes sense- any advice is helpful!!

 

[Tintin06]

Hi everyone! Does anyone know how long White & Case takes to respond post VI. This is for DTC. Thank you!

Have you heard back from them?

I did their VI in 2023. Turnaround was actually quite quick. Not much notice for the AC. That caught me off guard honestly.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi, I'm completing an Accurate pre-employment screening check. I'm currently trying to do the activity/work experience section. Am I supposed to put in all my work experience (as I did in my app) including various online internships (eg Legal cheek) or would putting only my paid jobs in there be sufficient? I need to put my activity history for the past 5 years, so idk if I'm meant to put EVERYTHING or at least one activity that covers the last 5 years?

I hope that makes sense- any advice is helpful!!

This needs to be employment only. It needs to be all employment in the last five years.

 

[PQ]

Have you heard back from them?

I did their VI in 2023. Turnaround was actually quite quick. Not much notice for the AC. That caught me off guard honestly.

Yes I have. It’s been almost 2 weeks now since I completed the VI tho.