TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[Andrei Radu]

For law firms which don't excel on both UK Chamber and Legal 500 England (no band 1 or Tier 1), how can we show interest to their practice areas or department? Usually I mention their rank and recent deals to connect with my related experiences. Honestly, that's make it harder when I wrote my first VS app ever at Paul, Weiss which resulted PFO. My first essay was generic as I told about their culture and industries excessively on my first essay. I mentioned deals and tie it with my experience in the second essay.

Similarly, I found another US firm Morrison & Foersters, but at least it has int'l secondment unlike PW. I also don't want to mention their perks and benefits obviously or talking about justice. I tend to focus on the commercial aspects, but stuck as these firms don't have any more peculiarity I am afraid there are more firms in the same extent. How should I write them? @Andrei Radu @Abbie Whitlock

Hi @Amgrad this is a great question and targets an issue that many candidates struggle with when they apply to firms with smaller/newer London presences. My answer to your question of how to show interest in their departments is two-fold: firstly, I will explain why not having a Chambers/Legal 500 band 1/tier 1 ranking is definitely no bar to one of your 'why the firm' reasons being the firm's expertise in that practice area - and indeed why any Chambers ranking is thought to be proof of a strength in the area; secondly, I will focus on how to express an interest in a firm's departments that goes beyond the usual "market-leading expertise/strength" in the area based reasoning.

A) Why you can justify a "why the firm" practice area-based motivation on any Chambers ranking

While you may very roughly think of band 1 to band 4 Chambers rankings as going from the "best" to the "worst" in reputation, this best-to-worst ranking is only a ranking of a select handful of firms which are already considered to be the best in the jurisdiction for that type if work. To take high-end Corporate M&A as an example: there are around 20 firms in total Chambers ranks here from band 1 to band 2. Nonetheless, there are more than 100 firms in the City that will provide corporate M&A advice and that would love to make it to the ratings. While a band 1 corporate M&A firm (say, Freshfields) can normally be assumed to have a stronger reputation in M&A than a band 4 firm (say, White & Case), White & Case can still be assumed to have a much stronger reputation in M&A than the significant majority of firms who do not even make it to the rankings - which in this case includes many big names, such as Gibson Dunn, Travers Smith, BCLP, Milbank, etc. Generally speaking, if a firm's practice gets a Chambers ranking, it is good enough to be mentioned as a reason to want to join the firm (although, to differentiate it from similarly/better ranked rivals, you may not want to have it as the only reason you list).

A second point that should be made is that Chambers/LegaL 500 rankings are not an indicator of absolute quality, in that they are influenced by the size of the firm's practice. Chambers rankings do not only assess for the quality of a firm's work - ie are their usual mandates consistently high-end and complex ones, does it have blue-chip clients etc - but also the quantity, as this is also a factor for establishing reputation. As such, larger and older firms, such as the Magic Circle, will generally have an advantage over newer firms. Thus, if you are principally interested in quality of work rather than general renown, you can motivate choosing a lower band-ranked firm because of factors such as: (i) a higher average deal/case value; (ii) having a high proportion of highly-ranked practitioners; (iii) punching above their weight by getting a Chambers ranking despite lower headcount; etc. All of these are examples of factors that could be indicative of a high-quality practice, despite not being as renowned as the practice of the largest players in the market.

B) Interest in a practice area beyond general "strong/market-leading" expertise

Importantly, the Chambers rankings operate at a high level of generality, while you could tie your interests to more specific subareas pf a firm's practice area. Thus, while a firm may be ranked "just" band 4, there are likely particular subareas (say life sciences M&A, or tech M&A) where they have stronger expertise than in other areas, and potentially even market leading expertise. For instance, White & Case, a band-4 ranked firm for corporate M&A, is generally thought to be among the best firms for infrastructure/energy-liked M&A work. Likewise, Gibson Dunn, a firm that is not necessarily known to be one of the best of the best in general PE dealmaking, is seen as the go-to firm for European/cross-border PE infrastructure investments. Thus, you can further individualise your interest not just by looking at sector-based specialties within a practice area, but also by looking at geographical spread of expertise.

The aforementioned are just some examples of factors you can consider when you want to look beyond general expertise. Nonetheless, there are many others you could tie your interest to, such as:

• Strategy: how is the firm looking to expand this area; have there been any recent lateral hires, headcount growth, partner promotions etc?
• Client base: does the firm have any big clients in the industry that you are particularly attracted to working with?
• Organisation: how broad/narrow is the practice's organisation - do you have teams split by sub-types of legal work in the department (i.e. different private vs public M&A teams) or by the different types of clients they service (i.e. splits by sector focus), or is the organisation more generalist (e.g. some firm's corporate departments include everything from public/private corporate M&A, PE, corporate governance, JVs, general commercial contracts to equity capital markets work).
• Importance within the firm/office: certain practice areas are more central to a firm's operations, which can affect your chances of getting a seat or qualifying in said practice.

 

[johnsmith]

Sent out a lot of applications this cycle and now I am struggling to balance all these assessments that are coming through at the same time! Anyone else feeling this way?

At one point, I ended up doing 5 tests in one day... It's almost a full-time job!

 

[Amgrad]

Hi @Amgrad this is a great question and targets an issue that many candidates struggle with when they apply to firms with smaller/newer London presences. My answer to your question of how to show interest in their departments is two-fold: firstly, I will explain why not having a Chambers/Legal 500 band 1/tier 1 ranking is definitely no bar to one of your 'why the firm' reasons being the firm's expertise in that practice area - and indeed why any Chambers ranking is thought to be proof of a strength in the area; secondly, I will focus on how to express an interest in a firm's departments that goes beyond the usual "market-leading expertise/strength" in the area based reasoning.

A) Why you can justify a "why the firm" practice area-based motivation on any Chambers ranking

While you may very roughly think of band 1 to band 4 Chambers rankings as going from the "best" to the "worst" in reputation, this best-to-worst ranking is only a ranking of a select handful of firms which are already considered to be the best in the jurisdiction for that type if work. To take high-end Corporate M&A as an example: there are around 20 firms in total Chambers ranks here from band 1 to band 2. Nonetheless, there are more than 100 firms in the City that will provide corporate M&A advice and that would love to make it to the ratings. While a band 1 corporate M&A firm (say, Freshfields) can normally be assumed to have a stronger reputation in M&A than a band 4 firm (say, White & Case), White & Case can still be assumed to have a much stronger reputation in M&A than the significant majority of firms who do not even make it to the rankings - which in this case includes many big names, such as Gibson Dunn, Travers Smith, BCLP, Milbank, etc. Generally speaking, if a firm's practice gets a Chambers ranking, it is good enough to be mentioned as a reason to want to join the firm (although, to differentiate it from similarly/better ranked rivals, you may not want to have it as the only reason you list).

A second point that should be made is that Chambers/LegaL 500 rankings are not an indicator of absolute quality, in that they are influenced by the size of the firm's practice. Chambers rankings do not only assess for the quality of a firm's work - ie are their usual mandates consistently high-end and complex ones, does it have blue-chip clients etc - but also the quantity, as this is also a factor for establishing reputation. As such, larger and older firms, such as the Magic Circle, will generally have an advantage over newer firms. Thus, if you are principally interested in quality of work rather than general renown, you can motivate choosing a lower band-ranked firm because of factors such as: (i) a higher average deal/case value; (ii) having a high proportion of highly-ranked practitioners; (iii) punching above their weight by getting a Chambers ranking despite lower headcount; etc. All of these are examples of factors that could be indicative of a high-quality practice, despite not being as renowned as the practice of the largest players in the market.

B) Interest in a practice area beyond general "strong/market-leading" expertise

Importantly, the Chambers rankings operate at a high level of generality, while you could tie your interests to more specific subareas pf a firm's practice area. Thus, while a firm may be ranked "just" band 4, there are likely particular subareas (say life sciences M&A, or tech M&A) where they have stronger expertise than in other areas, and potentially even market leading expertise. For instance, White & Case, a band-4 ranked firm for corporate M&A, is generally thought to be among the best firms for infrastructure/energy-liked M&A work. Likewise, Gibson Dunn, a firm that is not necessarily known to be one of the best of the best in general PE dealmaking, is seen as the go-to firm for European/cross-border PE infrastructure investments. Thus, you can further individualise your interest not just by looking at sector-based specialties within a practice area, but also by looking at geographical spread of expertise.

The aforementioned are just some examples of factors you can consider when you want to look beyond general expertise. Nonetheless, there are many others you could tie your interest to, such as:

• Strategy: how is the firm looking to expand this area; have there been any recent lateral hires, headcount growth, partner promotions etc?
• Client base: does the firm have any big clients in the industry that you are particularly attracted to working with?
• Organisation: how broad/narrow is the practice's organisation - do you have teams split by sub-types of legal work in the department (i.e. different private vs public M&A teams) or by the different types of clients they service (i.e. splits by sector focus), or is the organisation more generalist (e.g. some firm's corporate departments include everything from public/private corporate M&A, PE, corporate governance, JVs, general commercial contracts to equity capital markets work).
• Importance within the firm/office: certain practice areas are more central to a firm's operations, which can affect your chances of getting a seat or qualifying in said practice.

Thank you Andrei for giving a thorough answer!

I knew for P,W it was due to a relatively new presence in the UK, but for Morrison Foerster it's just strange as they've been in London since the iron lady aka Margaret Thatcher economic reform in 1980s along with majority of US firms. Well, I've not worked in financial services industries only, but as intern in VC, UN, and Consulting firms, I've dealt with clients from different sector industries. So, it doesn't matter if firms like W&C don't excel in PE, but did great on other areas which excited me.

However, what if on the essay I said similar like "I do believe through my extensive experiences and motivation, I could contribute to the improvement of firm X in [practice areas] for not just showing prestige to clients, but also integrity and excellence"

Do you think that's a day dreaming? 🤣 I know it might be shallow to write like that as a trainee, except if I commit long term to become a partner by joining the firm for 10 years or more.

 

[londonlawyer]

In an interview, when they ask 'why law', are they asking me why I wanted to study law at university or why I want to work as a lawyer? I have always answered this questions as why I chose to study law at university, but I'm not sure whether that is the right approach to the question.

 

[vweewcvew]

For now, focus on getting your coursework done. If you haven't started yet and it is due next week, then that should be your ONLY priority imo. Once you get that done I think you should hit the reset button. Clearly whatever strategy you have, if you even have one, isn't working. I felt this way several times during uni, and had to hit that reset button A LOT of times. But it's important that you do. Before every Monday morning, you should have a clear goal for each week. I would plan out (roughly) what I wanted to achieve for every single day of that upcoming week. With regard to coursework, break it up into lots of small chunks that you can get stuck into each day. Then, for applications, aim for about 2 or 3 a week, depending on how much uni work you have. I used to 'lock' myself in the library until I finished an application as I knew there was no chance I would do one once I got home. The last thing i'd say is that it's worth it. Having just graduated myself, the constant motivational battle and the late nights were worth it. I remember when i received my first AC invite and my first VS/TC offer, I was so happy. Not only because it's what most law students dream of, but because I knew how hard I had to work to get there. What you'll really regret is not putting in the hours now, or not sticking to your weekly plans, as those are things that are in your control. Wishing you the best of luck and feel free to reach out anytime!

Hello!

I totally get how overwhelming it feels when applications and uni pile up at the same time - I faced a similar issue when I was applying last year whilst in my final year of uni!

What helped me was getting really intentional with my time. I made a weekly schedule and blocked out specific hours just for uni work (e.g. lectures, coursework, revision) and separate blocks for applications. Having it written down and planned took a lot of the pressure off as I was chipping away at each aspect each week.

It also made it easier to see how many applications I could realistically manage without falling behind. There's no rule that you have to hit a certain number - I'd say a few well-crafted applications are better than spreading yourself too thin!

University deadlines are fixed, so don't feel guilty about prioritising them - especially since you usually only have one chance to complete the assessments. You can fit applications around the non-negotiables once you have a clearer structure - even a handful of strong, focused applications is enough to give yourself a good chance of securing a VS.

Hang in there - you've already made a solid start! Best of luck with your uni work and applications

Thank you so much- thats very helpful!!!

 

[Amgrad]

A random Q, but does anyone here follow news on Data Centers and PE firms' investments in them?

If yes, please DM me, I would like t have a discussion on this.

TIA.

I'm not sure which firm is this? I am talking about them on some of my applications and recently I've registered for TW Data Centre series in the EU as well.

I also crossed over a video from World Economic Forum about the first launch of data centre in space to overcome the environmental damage on land and more efficient solar energy exposure. You can watch it here and it covers other emerging critical tech as well:

 

[elliece]

for the job sim + vi stage for freshfields, should we prepare qs on our motivations for training at freshfields or is it purely just scenarios? i dont want to know the questions, just the type of questions!

It's mainly scenario-focused, but prep both (it may be useful...)


(I hope this is okay to post!)

 

[M123]

I left my app for WVS like that for about 5 hours (had an emergency!) and came back, and I got an AC offer so I'm sure you will be okay! I just reopened the browser and it reloaded fine However, I didn't turn my laptop off, I just shut the screen.

thank you for your help!

 

[Andrei Radu]

Thank you Andrei for giving a thorough answer!

I knew for P,W it was due to a relatively new presence in the UK, but for Morrison Foerster it's just strange as they've been in London since the iron lady aka Margaret Thatcher economic reform in 1980s along with majority of US firms. Well, I've not worked in financial services industries only, but as intern in VC, UN, and Consulting firms, I've dealt with clients from different sector industries. So, it doesn't matter if firms like W&C don't excel in PE, but did great on other areas which excited me.

However, what if on the essay I said similar like "I do believe through my extensive experiences and motivation, I could contribute to the improvement of firm X in [practice areas] for not just showing prestige to clients, but also integrity and excellence"

Do you think that's a day dreaming? 🤣 I know it might be shallow to write like that as a trainee, except if I commit long term to become a partner by joining the firm for 10 years or more.

I do not know a lot about MoFo in London and its growth, but part of the explanation of why they are not bigger/more renowned in a given practice area here could just be due to the fact that there has simply not been a strategic need for it; in that the firm's current capabilities may suffice to service the needs of its US-based client base and the firm may not have an ambition to become a transatlantic player.

Nonetheless, even if this is the case, I think my points still stand, in that a firm can still have top practitioners and work on complex and high-value mandates in London despite not aiming to be a household name in this market. From the perspective of a prospective trainee/junior associate, if you get great training (by getting exposure to top practitioners who will hopefully be invested in helping you learn and grow), at a firm that has a very-well respected name in the wider legal community, and get to work often on interesting high-value matters, you should arguably not care that much about the firm not being as big of a player in the London market. The only real downside could be a somewhat lower level of clout if you will be looking to move in house early in your career, but from my understanding the difference should not be huge.

Further down the line, I can see how this becomes a more important consideration, as it can impact partnership progression chances, but that is in truth not a factor that should be given much weigh at this stage. In general, the percentage of trainees who ever make equity partner is tiny, while the percentage who make equity partner at the same firm is even smaller (as people tend to often move around firms to find the best place to build a book of business); and, as such, basing your decision-making on it would not be wise. On this point, I can also respond to your more direct question: I would not include that ending sentence, as it may (i) suggest that you do not believe its existing quality is good enough; and (ii) it may suggest you are not sufficiently aware of the level of impact a trainee or associate can make. Even a junior partner could rarely make a very significant impact - only some senior rainmakers would have strong enough expertise and books of business to change a firm's position in the market.

 

[Amgrad]

I do not know a lot about MoFo in London and its growth, but part of the explanation of why they are not bigger/more renowned in a given practice area here could just be due to the fact that there has simply not been a strategic need for it; in that the firm's current capabilities may suffice to service the needs of its US-based client base and the firm may not have an ambition to become a transatlantic player.

Nonetheless, even if this is the case, I think my points still stand, in that a firm can still have top practitioners and work on complex and high-value mandates in London despite not aiming to be a household name in this market. From the perspective of a prospective trainee/junior associate, if you get great training (by getting exposure to top practitioners who will hopefully be invested in helping you learn and grow), at a firm that has a very-well respected name in the wider legal community, and get to work often on interesting high-value matters, you should arguably not care that much about the firm not being as big of a player in the London market. The only real downside could be a somewhat lower level of clout if you will be looking to move in house early in your career, but from my understanding the difference should not be huge.

Further down the line, I can see how this becomes a more important consideration, as it can impact partnership progression chances, but that is in truth not a factor that should be given much weigh at this stage. In general, the percentage of trainees who ever make equity partner is tiny, while the percentage who make equity partner at the same firm is even smaller (as people tend to often move around firms to find the best place to build a book of business); and, as such, basing your decision-making on it would not be wise. On this point, I can also respond to your more direct question: I would not include that ending sentence, as it may (i) suggest that you do not believe its existing quality is good enough; and (ii) it may suggest you are not sufficiently aware of the level of impact a trainee or associate can make. Even a junior partner could rarely make a very significant impact - only some senior rainmakers would have strong enough expertise and books of business to change a firm's position in the market.

Thank you so much! That's very enriching feedback and broadening advice. Your logic and reasoning seems make sense for me now to equate and flag them for my future app improvement!

Now I'm fully agree about these concerns and thoughts and perhaps I'll be asking the grad team on Tuesday's law fair about firm specific questions.

 

[Andrei Radu]

@Andrei Radu @Abbie Whitlock Hi both, do you have any advice on how to approach the question of opportunities/challenges currently affecting law firms (especially in a VI context)?

Is it better to stick to a broad example, or something more niche? Always would love any examples you might have if possible 🫣

Hi @legallybrunette8 in short, I do not think it is inherently better to discuss a broad or niche example. In my opinion, what matters most for this kind of question is how you go about your analysis. As such, if I were you I would simply choose the topic I felt I was (i) more knowledgable about; and (ii) which givens me the opportunity for a more extended discussion on impact on the specific firm. I have expanded on these points in a lot more details in some recent posts, which I will quote bellow. I would advise you to take a look, as they explain both how to present a commercial topic well in general and how to analyse impact on a firm in more nuanced/in-depth way. There should also be a short-forum version of one of my past answers to this question.

Hi @flower1 as long as the topic you choose is one that is substantial enough to give you sufficient content to cover in a two-three minute answer and as long as you can also justify being interested in the topic, I think it should be fine. There is no objective list of "good" and "bad" commercial topics to discuss; what matters is not so much the topic itself, but the way you go about discussing it.

You may want to consider this list of questions as you are constructing your answer:

• Is the answer well-researched? Am I including and addressing all major points of discussion related to this topic?
• Is my answer nuanced and carefully considered? Am I taking into account a variety of different perspectives and stakeholders, and the different views and arguments they may formulate?
• Is the information I present fully descriptive, or am I taking any view as to more contested topics, such as underlying causes of events, responses from the government and commercial actors, future trends and impacts, etc?
• Is my answer well-structured and easy to follow? Have I made sure to avoid use of unnecessary jargon and complex terminology, and have I ensured that to the extent I have used jargon and complex terminology, I am able to break them down in laymen terms if prompted to?

Finally, to give an example of of a commercial topic I used to discuss: my favourite one back when I was applying was inflation and the policies of central banks. I remember I discussed causes (the Covid-19 pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine, etc), effects (rating interest rates and the consequent raise of cost of borrowing and investment) and projected impacts on the economy and financial markets (where I would also hone in on impact to PE and M&A and how big law firms would be impacted).

Hi @flower1 this is a really good question, and one I also used to struggle with quite a lot back in the day. The first thing I will mention is that making a detailed analysis of the impact of news to law firms is really difficult, as general commercial awareness resources and publications normally do not teach you to make such connections.

Importantly, it is also worth remembering that, for this reason, there is a limit as to how detailed and novel a firm would expect your answer to be. In many cases, commercial awareness questions based on an article will not focus that much on the specific impact to the firm; and generally, even when they ask this direct question, firms will not mark you down for having a "generic" answer such as one that points out what practices and sectors will likely experience an increase/decrease in demand.

That said, of course, the more nuanced, well-researched, and going beyond and above in depth of analysis an answer is, the better. A number of ways you can seek to add these layers of depth to your answer include:

• Focusing on firm-specific bits of information you can include, such as anything specific to the firm that may make new opportunities particularly important for them? For instance, if there is a projected increase in PE activity, the likes of Kirkland and Latham would benefit a lot more than other rivals with PE practices, given their dominance in this market.
• Focusing on how firms may respond to the challenge/opportunity - i.e. beyond saying what is the likely impact, you can consider if the firm should be looking to hire more associates/partners in a given area, expand geographically, invest in technology, reduce operational costs, etc.
• Link the main story you read about to any related trends/stories that are relevant to your analysis and conclusions - e.g. if you are discussing increased demand for corporate work as a result of decreasing inflation and a more relaxed monetary policy, you could also mention how this will be further reinforced by the calming of tensions around tariffs and trade wars, a built up of dry powder in private funds, and a potential decrease in geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.

Finally, I just wanted to recommend to you some additional commercial awareness resources which were particularly helpful to me in improving my ability to analyse the impact different commercial news have on law firms:

• The Lawyer is a great publication for this kind of analysis, although you will need an organisational subscription; if you are a student, check if your university has one. If not, their podcast is still freely accessible, so I would advise you to take a look.
• The Global Legal Post is an amazing resource which does not require a subscription at all, so I would advise you to browse through it.

 

[lawstudent2]

Does anyone have any advice, in the last 24 hours I have been rejected from Reed Smith and DLA Piper post application (so didn't even get the test for either) and both rejections were received within a week of me applying.

I'm not really sure what to make of it as I've gotten to ACs before and am progressing thru test stages with other firms. My weakest part of my app is my grades but they both say they take a 2.1 and I thought they were strong applications, maybe I was too late idk.


Any advice on this as I am struggling to move past these rejections since I don't really know what to learn from it/what I shld have done differently.

 

[e_turbo2]

In an interview, when they ask 'why law', are they asking me why I wanted to study law at university or why I want to work as a lawyer? I have always answered this questions as why I chose to study law at university, but I'm not sure whether that is the right approach to the question.

I tend to see this Q as why you want to be a lawyer (commercial law in particular) although adding in why you studied law can also give some depth into this question. If its an in person interview, I'm sure they might steer the conversation into that direction anyway.

All the best with everything!

 

[sbbusybee]

A&O SVS PFO… I don’t know if they send out a standard email but this is the first time I’ve genuinely been blindsided

 

[e_turbo2]

Does anyone have any advice, in the last 24 hours I have been rejected from Reed Smith and DLA Piper post application (so didn't even get the test for either) and both rejections were received within a week of me applying.

I'm not really sure what to make of it as I've gotten to ACs before and am progressing thru test stages with other firms. My weakest part of my app is my grades but they both say they take a 2.1 and I thought they were strong applications, maybe I was too late idk.


Any advice on this as I am struggling to move past these rejections since I don't really know what to learn from it/what I shld have done differently.

Sorry about your rejections - these are always quite difficult.

I think firstly, it is important to note that rejections are inevitable in this process even for 1st class graduates and applicants with strong work experience. As such, it is important to understand that the rejection does not always reflect on your grades or written application responses. Secondly, it would be good to maybe revisit your answers and see whether they are extremely tailored to the firm, have you had interactions with the firm, work experiences that link to the firm, and if your work experience sections are detailed and highlights transferable skills.

As you have gotten to Acs before and you are progressing through test stages with other firms, I wouldn't be too worried in these instances. Different firms focus on different parts of the application and its not always quite easy to understand what these factors are.

In light of this, keep your chin up and keep applying! Best of luck.

 

[stilltrying]

Anyone know how strict Sidley are on A levels - got AAB, I'm also on a 1st at uni

 

[LegalLigase]

A&O Shearman Summer VS PFO

Could anyone give me any clue about the PFO message below? Does it mean that I struggled in those areas or it was just a general message that they sent to everyone for PFO? Also any advice on how to reflect and prepare better for the next time would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

“Nonetheless, we encourage you to reflect on the following aspects:

1. Your academic history and achievements.

2. Your work experiences and how they align with your career goals.

3. Your motivation for pursuing a career in this area.

In addition, we recommend visiting our Law Career Guide on our website. It offers valuable resources and insights that can be instrumental in enhancing your future applications.”

 

[CharlesT47]

Hi @Andrei Radu
I was interested to hear your opinion on this since you're a future trainee for Davis Polk. I understand Davis Polk have strong ties to investment banks, and often advise lenders as opposed to PE sponsors in transactions.

How might you explain your interest in lender-sided finance as opposed to sponsor-sided finance? Is there a material difference? Obviously, the goal of your client is different since they are on different sides of the transactions but the key idea is the same-- help your client make money in the most cost-effective/ risk sensitive way.

 

[flower1]

Hello, has anyone done the Clifford Chance VI - I tried to find information on their website about format but there's not much

Thank you

 

[user55998384]

A&O Shearman Summer VS PFO

Could anyone give me any clue about the PFO message below? Does it mean that I struggled in those areas or it was just a general message that they sent to everyone for PFO? Also any advice on how to reflect and prepare better for the next time would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

“Nonetheless, we encourage you to reflect on the following aspects:

1. Your academic history and achievements.

2. Your work experiences and how they align with your career goals.

3. Your motivation for pursuing a career in this area.

In addition, we recommend visiting our Law Career Guide on our website. It offers valuable resources and insights that can be instrumental in enhancing your future applications.”

i got the same message - thought they were just telling me i messed up on every section lol