TC Journey

[CharlesT47]

Hi all, I am a recent graduate and I wanted to keep this thread active as a way to keep myself accountable. I am fortunate enough to have strong academics, and so right now my goal is to get as many interviews as possible. I am hoping for the best.

Applications (To send before October):
Gibson Dunn
HSF
Paul, Weiss
Latham and Watkins Open Day
Hogan Lovells
NRF

Applications: (Already Sent)
1. Sidley Austin
2. Slaughter and May (HK)
3. Macfarlanes


Rejections:
1. Paul, Weiss Open Day
2. HSF Open Day

Success:
1. TCLA x Willkie Open Day
2. Jones Day Interview

 

[CharlesT47]

Reflections on my rejections:
1. HSF open-day:
I tried to be too self-laudatory with my application. I spoke way too much about my own strengths, as opposed to what I wanted to get out of the Open Day. Over the 3 points I made, all 3 were talking about my own achievements and how HSF might cultivate them without digging deep into what I want to get out of the Open Day.


2. Paul, Weiss Open Day:
This is more difficult. I had made an active effort to speak about Paul, Weiss in my application. I think the crucial point was that I made a general observational point about hoping to learn more about PE without tying this point directly to Paul, Weiss. I explained how I wanted to learn more about how lawyers balance tax and competition constraints whilst advising on debt-equity mixes but this is too unspecific. It can be directly applied to any major American firm which specialises in PE and does not show sufficient research into Paul, Weiss.
For the Vac Scheme, I need to better understand what makes Paul, Weiss' PE team stand out. Who do they advise? If I were a sponsor, why would I pick Paul, Weiss over Kirkland?

I think this is right now a weakness in my applications. My Jones Day application succeeded because there wasn't space (nor an expectation) for an application to discuss a recent deal.

 

[CharlesT47]

As of right now, my interest lies in US firms with a strong emphasis on PE. It is difficult to justify applications to other firms such as NRF with less of an emphasis on PE. I will be considering whether it is even worth applying to those firms, especially when they have onerous SJTs/ whatever tests.

 

[Jaysen]

I really like that you are reflecting on your rejections @CharlesT47. This is such an important skill.

I'm also really glad to see the kind of questions you are thinking about (e.g. what makes Paul, Weiss different to other law firms?). We'll be running a few virtual events with Paul, Weiss this year and we'll do our best to lean into these kinds of questions.

Excited to follow your journey this cycle!

 

[ZNadeem]

Reflections on my rejections:
1. HSF open-day:
I tried to be too self-laudatory with my application. I spoke way too much about my own strengths, as opposed to what I wanted to get out of the Open Day. Over the 3 points I made, all 3 were talking about my own achievements and how HSF might cultivate them without digging deep into what I want to get out of the Open Day.


2. Paul, Weiss Open Day:
This is more difficult. I had made an active effort to speak about Paul, Weiss in my application. I think the crucial point was that I made a general observational point about hoping to learn more about PE without tying this point directly to Paul, Weiss. I explained how I wanted to learn more about how lawyers balance tax and competition constraints whilst advising on debt-equity mixes but this is too unspecific. It can be directly applied to any major American firm which specialises in PE and does not show sufficient research into Paul, Weiss.
For the Vac Scheme, I need to better understand what makes Paul, Weiss' PE team stand out. Who do they advise? If I were a sponsor, why would I pick Paul, Weiss over Kirkland?

I think this is right now a weakness in my applications. My Jones Day application succeeded because there wasn't space (nor an expectation) for an application to discuss a recent deal.

Wow, these reflections are really thorough and show a high level of self-awareness, which is exactly the kind of mindset that will improve your applications. I love how you’ve broken down each rejection and honestly analysed what didn’t work.

I also like that you’re thinking strategically about which firms to prioritise, focusing on those aligned with your interests and where your effort can have the biggest impact. That kind of disciplined approach will save you time and help you craft stronger, targeted applications.

Best of luck!

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi all, I am a recent graduate and I wanted to keep this thread active as a way to keep myself accountable. I am fortunate enough to have strong academics, and so right now my goal is to get as many interviews as possible. I am hoping for the best.

Applications (To send before October):
Gibson Dunn
HSF
Paul, Weiss
Latham and Watkins Open Day
Hogan Lovells
NRF

Applications: (Already Sent)
1. Sidley Austin
2. Slaughter and May (HK)
3. Macfarlanes


Rejections:
1. Paul, Weiss Open Day
2. HSF Open Day

Success:
1. TCLA x Willkie Open Day
2. Jones Day Interview

Hi @CharlesT47

I really like how you have broken this down, it makes your progress so easy to follow! Staying organised like this makes such a big difference with applications, and you have already had some successful outcomes which you should be super proud of

As mentioned above, whilst I totally understand that rejections are disheartening, it's really inspiring to see how you have reflected on them and the steps you are going to take moving forward. This is such an important (and tricky!) skill, but definitely one that will benefit you in the long run.

Wishing you all the best in this cycle, and I look forward to following along!

 

[CharlesT47]

Hi, thanks for the encouraging replies!
I have spent the past day and a half labouring over the why commercial law question. I have experiences as a mini-pupil and a consultant and so I am trying to explain why commercial law is right for me, as opposed to those careers. It has been extremely challenging, especially condensing my motivation into a single point.

I have pivoted away from my original reason: An enjoyment of using the law to spot practical/ commercial solutions. This is too simple. Any good barrister does the exact same thing.
I have moved onto a more complex point: An enjoyment of how long term client contact means I can understand the client's needs more holistically and advise pro-actively/ shape their broader strategy using my legal expertise (as opposed to simply acting reactively, as a barrister does). The issue with a more complex point is that it 1) takes more words and 2) is difficult to express.

This is my current draft and any comments would be helpful.

"
I am drawn to commercial law for the opportunity to use legal expertise to shape solutions that reflect a business’ evolving priorities.

As a student consultant for the [Student Consultacy Group], I advised a Spanish art foundation over three weeks where I appreciated how sustained client contact gave me a more holistic understanding of their shifting goals. When I saw they valued data-backed arguments, I created seven statistical graphics to ground my recommendations. When they expressed a desire to grow locally, I identified Spanish porcelain and textile companies with which they could collaborate. I realised that I valued the process of shaping a client’s commercial strategy over time, adapting as priorities changed.

I built on this during an advisory exercise with [legal consultant] where I recommended the most suitable form of finance for a Nigerian skincare company to restart operations. Having analysed their financial documents, I suggested a mortgage secured against land to reduce lending costs and preserve the brand’s main selling point: family control. The aspect I found most rewarding was meeting the challenging of weighing different legal options to find a solution aligned with the company’s long term goals.

To me, commercial law represents the fusion of these experiences. I can do more than reactively solve issues, taking a pro-active role in guiding a client’s broader strategy while ensuring it is grounded in commercial and legal reality. It is this challenge, and the opportunity to meet it, that draws me to commercial law.
"
I am unsatisfied with how wordy it is, especially the first sentence. It is annoying though as this is the final section to change in my Gibson Dunn application.

Anyways, I am attending Willkie's PE seminar today and Hogan Lovells' talk about block-chain technology. Hopefully, this will help ahead of my mock interview tomorrow.

 

[ZNadeem]

Hi, thanks for the encouraging replies!
I have spent the past day and a half labouring over the why commercial law question. I have experiences as a mini-pupil and a consultant and so I am trying to explain why commercial law is right for me, as opposed to those careers. It has been extremely challenging, especially condensing my motivation into a single point.

I have pivoted away from my original reason: An enjoyment of using the law to spot practical/ commercial solutions. This is too simple. Any good barrister does the exact same thing.
I have moved onto a more complex point: An enjoyment of how long term client contact means I can understand the client's needs more holistically and advise pro-actively/ shape their broader strategy using my legal expertise (as opposed to simply acting reactively, as a barrister does). The issue with a more complex point is that it 1) takes more words and 2) is difficult to express.

This is my current draft and any comments would be helpful.

"
I am drawn to commercial law for the opportunity to use legal expertise to shape solutions that reflect a business’ evolving priorities.

As a student consultant for the [Student Consultacy Group], I advised a Spanish art foundation over three weeks where I appreciated how sustained client contact gave me a more holistic understanding of their shifting goals. When I saw they valued data-backed arguments, I created seven statistical graphics to ground my recommendations. When they expressed a desire to grow locally, I identified Spanish porcelain and textile companies with which they could collaborate. I realised that I valued the process of shaping a client’s commercial strategy over time, adapting as priorities changed.

I built on this during an advisory exercise with [legal consultant] where I recommended the most suitable form of finance for a Nigerian skincare company to restart operations. Having analysed their financial documents, I suggested a mortgage secured against land to reduce lending costs and preserve the brand’s main selling point: family control. The aspect I found most rewarding was meeting the challenging of weighing different legal options to find a solution aligned with the company’s long term goals.

To me, commercial law represents the fusion of these experiences. I can do more than reactively solve issues, taking a pro-active role in guiding a client’s broader strategy while ensuring it is grounded in commercial and legal reality. It is this challenge, and the opportunity to meet it, that draws me to commercial law.
"
I am unsatisfied with how wordy it is, especially the first sentence. It is annoying though as this is the final section to change in my Gibson Dunn application.

Anyways, I am attending Willkie's PE seminar today and Hogan Lovells' talk about block-chain technology. Hopefully, this will help ahead of my mock interview tomorrow.

Hi! I would say this is a bit wordy — the core idea is strong, but it gets buried. You are on the right track with picking a USP niche to commercial law! However, right now, you’ve given a lot of Evidence (detailed stories) but not enough Analysis tying it clearly back to why this makes commercial law the right career for you.


Here’s what I’d suggest in line with PEA:

• Point – upfront, one concise sentence capturing your motivation (e.g. “I am drawn to commercial law because it allows me to build long-term relationships with clients and proactively shape strategies that address both legal and commercial challenges.”).
• Evidence – briefly summarise one example only. Don’t retell the whole story, just the key action and what you learned.
• Analysis – after each, explain why it matters — how it links to your enjoyment of proactive, holistic client advisory work, and why that makes commercial law the best fit.

So instead of long paragraphs of detail, the E is lean, and the A does the heavy lifting. That way, the first sentence immediately gives your reader the crux of your answer, and everything else slots into place to support it.

 

[CharlesT47]

Hi all, just a brief update.

Have changed my application strategy somewhat. I see now that there really isn't any point in applying to law firms that I have little interest in, no matter how much I want to get a Winter Vac Scheme. The Willkie open day helped narrowed my choices down to US law firms as I really do prefer the smaller intake and increased responsibility.

Over the past 10 days or so, I have been doing a few more applications. I have unfortunately been neglecting my commercial awareness habit and my general interview prep so I will be getting back on that tomorrow. I also need to work on my Watson Glaser. Normally, I am quite good at this sort of thing but the one I did for Linklaters was horrible. I lacked confidence in my answers and my instincts were completely off. I don't have high hopes for this application.

Applications to do before Oct 14:
1. Latham & Watkins Open Day
2. Cleary, Gottlieb Hamilton & Steen WVS
3. White & Case WVS
4. Weil Open Day

I am hesitant to apply to Weil as I haven't heard the best things about them nor have I had particularly positive interactions with them. I will see how my applications go and whether I can be bothered to do so.

Waiting to hear back:
1. Paul, Weiss WVS
2. Linklaters WVS
3. Gibson Dunn Spring
4. Sidley Austin WVS
5. Slaughter and May (HK)

Success:
Jones Day Interview

Failure:
Macfarlanes Spring

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi all, just a brief update.

Have changed my application strategy somewhat. I see now that there really isn't any point in applying to law firms that I have little interest in, no matter how much I want to get a Winter Vac Scheme. The Willkie open day helped narrowed my choices down to US law firms as I really do prefer the smaller intake and increased responsibility.

Over the past 10 days or so, I have been doing a few more applications. I have unfortunately been neglecting my commercial awareness habit and my general interview prep so I will be getting back on that tomorrow. I also need to work on my Watson Glaser. Normally, I am quite good at this sort of thing but the one I did for Linklaters was horrible. I lacked confidence in my answers and my instincts were completely off. I don't have high hopes for this application.

Applications to do before Oct 14:
1. Latham & Watkins Open Day
2. Cleary, Gottlieb Hamilton & Steen WVS
3. White & Case WVS
4. Weil Open Day

I am hesitant to apply to Weil as I haven't heard the best things about them nor have I had particularly positive interactions with them. I will see how my applications go and whether I can be bothered to do so.

Waiting to hear back:
1. Paul, Weiss WVS
2. Linklaters WVS
3. Gibson Dunn Spring
4. Sidley Austin WVS
5. Slaughter and May (HK)

Success:
Jones Day Interview

Failure:
Macfarlanes Spring

Hey!

Thanks for sharing the update - it sounds like you've really taken a step back and thought carefully about your approach, which is never easy but definitely worthwhile! Narrowing your focus to firms you're genuinely interested in will make the whole process feel a lot more purposeful and guided (and a bit less exhausting, hopefully!).

Try not to be too tough on yourself about the Linklaters test! They can feel brutal in the moment, but sometimes the results end up being better than you think Everyone has an off day with these things, and it doesn't mean you won't feel more confident moving forward. Getting back into your commercial awareness routine and practising the Watson Glaser test should give you a confidence boost too!

Your upcoming applications look really strong, and I think it's sensible to focus on firms that you know you are interested in and consider Weil at a later date. Best of luck with your next applications - you're clearly putting in the work, and it'll pay off!

 

[CharlesT47]

Currently, I am searching for commercial topics that pique my interest. I came across this summary of an article by the TCLA Academy which I was originally interested in but in my opinion, the author of the article has somewhat misrepresented the gravity of the situation.

"A massive cryptocurrency dispute worth over $1 billion is heading to the High Court this week, with two heavyweight law firms Clyde & Co and Quinn Emanuel, squaring off in what could become a landmark case. The battle centres on Tether, which issues “stablecoins” (cryptocurrencies designed to maintain steady values), and deposits it made with investment bank Britannia Financial Group. Arbitral International, represented by Clyde & Co, claims it’s entitled to profits from a Bahamas brokerage (a financial services company in the Bahamas) it sold to Britannia in 2021, arguing the Tether deposits are part of those assets. Britannia, defended by Quinn Emanuel, disputes this completely.


But here’s where it gets particularly intriguing - the case involves Julio Herrera Velutini, a Conservative Party donor who recently struck a deal with US authorities over electoral campaign law violations. This adds a layer of political complexity to what’s already a complex legal dispute about cryptocurrency ownership and corporate structures. The fact that major international law firms are deploying senior partners for a four-day commercial court trial shows how seriously the legal industry is taking crypto-related disputes as this asset class matures.


This case represents the growing intersection between traditional corporate law and the wild west of cryptocurrency - we’re witnessing the legal system grappling with assets that didn’t exist when most commercial law was written. The outcome could set important precedents for how courts handle cryptocurrency deposits (digital money held by financial institutions), cross-border investment structures (international business arrangements spanning multiple countries), and the rights of parties in complex financial arrangements involving digital assets (legal claims in multi-party cryptocurrency deals). With over $1 billion at stake, this goes beyond just money; indeed, it’s primarily about establishing legal frameworks for an industry that’s often operated in regulatory grey areas."


This is the TCLA article. I think the final paragraph oversells how important this case is/ the relevancy of the asset itself. (Cryptocurrency)
In the FT, this is how they describe the actual dispute:

"According to the filings from both parties, there was an agreement that Britannia Financial would pay an extra sum based on the amount of revenue-generating assets the business held a year after its sale, including those from clients originally introduced by Arbitral or related parties. Arbitral argues it is owed money under that arrangement because Tether’s deposit was made in the 12 months after it sold the business. Britannia Financial denies that it owes any more money, saying that Tether put the funds with its London-based subsidiary Britannia Global Markets rather than the brokerage it bought from Arbitral. Britannia Global Markets operates as an executing broker and securities custodian."

To me, this seems to be a factual dispute more than anything. Arbitral Investments claim that they had facilitated Tether's deposit and so is entitled to the commission. Britannia Global Markets claim that they had been introduced to Tether separately and so they are not liable to pay any commission. The fact that the underlying asset is cryptocurrency (which 'didn't exist when most commercial law was written') is entirely irrelevant. Additionally, the fact that 'major international law firms are deploying senior partners' does not show how seriously the legal indsutry is taking 'crypto-related' disputes. Both sides are taking this seriously because the value of the comission is likely huge, considering the deposit itself was $1 billion. Perhaps I haven't read the most up-to-date article as this FT article is from 2 years ago. If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know.

 

[e_turbo2]

@CharlesT47 Hey, I've enjoyed reading your thread and I am wishing you all the very best for this application cycle and beyond. Did you do the simulate (second assessment) for Macfarlanes? If so, how did you find it? And again, if so, how long after doing it did you hear back? Thanks

 

[CharlesT47]

@CharlesT47 Hey, I've enjoyed reading your thread and I am wishing you all the very best for this application cycle and beyond. Did you do the simulate (second assessment) for Macfarlanes? If so, how did you find it? And again, if so, how long after doing it did you hear back? Thanks

Hey thanks. I didn't do it-- I failed the first stage so they never even sent me the invite to do the second stage. Best of luck with your application though!

 

[Mrcerec]

Hi all, just a brief update.

Have changed my application strategy somewhat. I see now that there really isn't any point in applying to law firms that I have little interest in, no matter how much I want to get a Winter Vac Scheme. The Willkie open day helped narrowed my choices down to US law firms as I really do prefer the smaller intake and increased responsibility.

Over the past 10 days or so, I have been doing a few more applications. I have unfortunately been neglecting my commercial awareness habit and my general interview prep so I will be getting back on that tomorrow. I also need to work on my Watson Glaser. Normally, I am quite good at this sort of thing but the one I did for Linklaters was horrible. I lacked confidence in my answers and my instincts were completely off. I don't have high hopes for this application.

Applications to do before Oct 14:
1. Latham & Watkins Open Day
2. Cleary, Gottlieb Hamilton & Steen WVS
3. White & Case WVS
4. Weil Open Day

I am hesitant to apply to Weil as I haven't heard the best things about them nor have I had particularly positive interactions with them. I will see how my applications go and whether I can be bothered to do so.

Waiting to hear back:
1. Paul, Weiss WVS
2. Linklaters WVS
3. Gibson Dunn Spring
4. Sidley Austin WVS
5. Slaughter and May (HK)

Success:
Jones Day Interview

Failure:
Macfarlanes Spring

May I suggest Katten as a good option. Only 3 places, but a growing US firm, especially in London.

 

[CharlesT47]

May I suggest Katten as a good option. Only 3 places, but a growing US firm, especially in London.

thanks I will look into them!

 

[CharlesT47]

Have been trying to find an interesting commercial story to talk about. So far have written my thoughts on the EA take-private but I am not particularly interested in it. It has been fun to actually think about the implications of a story though. I've attached it if anyone wants to discuss/ give their thoughts on the situation.
Anyways, am working on White & Case. I am pleasantly surprised by their new application question-- makes it far easier. I received my Linklaters feedback and I came in the 44 percentile for the WG test. This is so disappointing. In my second year, I was in the 88 percentile simply relying on raw instinct. This has given me motivation to actually practise instead of relying on my instinct.

 

[CharlesT47]

Having listened to FT's podcast on the EA take private, there are some additional thoughts.
First, I didn't pay attention to the debt/ equity mix. The funding for the transaction was $36 billion worth of equity and $20 billion debt. According to the FT, this is quite a modest ratio. Typically, PE companies purchase other companies by taking on far more debt. I am interested though in how these institutions decide on the debt/ equity ratio. Whilst using more equity means that this is a safer decision with less immediate pressure to earn (as there are fewer interest rate payments), I don't know why they aren't using more leverage as surely that would lead to more potential gain? This could mean that there is a lot of 'dry powder' around, with firms eager to spend cash instead of letting it sit around. I will need to do more research to understand this point.

Second, the entirety of the debt was funded by JP Morgan. The due dilligence for this sum took less than a week. This is so interesting to me. Why is JP Morgan so relaxed with this specific transaction. They must either have a lot of faith in AI technology, or they believe strongly in Silver Lake Capital's expertise.

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Have been trying to find an interesting commercial story to talk about. So far have written my thoughts on the EA take-private but I am not particularly interested in it. It has been fun to actually think about the implications of a story though. I've attached it if anyone wants to discuss/ give their thoughts on the situation.
Anyways, am working on White & Case. I am pleasantly surprised by their new application question-- makes it far easier. I received my Linklaters feedback and I came in the 44 percentile for the WG test. This is so disappointing. In my second year, I was in the 88 percentile simply relying on raw instinct. This has given me motivation to actually practise instead of relying on my instinct.

Hello!

Thank you so much for sharing this - I've actually been following the EA take-private story as a big Sims fan, so I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the commercial side of the deal! I think it's really great that you're actually sitting down and reflecting on commercial stories rather than just reading passively.

I would try not to be too disheartened about the WG result - these tests can fluctuate a lot depending on your environment and even your mindset on the day. The fact that you have hit 88% before shows you're more than capable, and I am confident that you will improve again quickly

Best of luck with the White & Case application, and I look forward to following along with any commercial updates you share!