TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[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

 

[msclm]

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

A friend of mine got through to hr interview with AAB/ABB (can’t remember which one, but wasn’t AAA)

 

[bh.sa]

AOS SVS PFO on the weekend

 

[a1024]

Hi, is it still worth applying to Mishcon and Simmons & Simmons?

 

[Prudentia]

Hi, is it still worth applying to Mishcon and Simmons & Simmons?

If they’re still accepting applications the answer should always be “YES!” Don’t strike yourself out prematurely because of an arbitrary deadline.

 

[Amgrad]

I know people who got through to HR/partner interview with ABB

A friend of mine got through to hr interview with AAB/ABB (can’t remember which one, but wasn’t AAA)

You said ABB (see above)

Also, I applied to their spring/summer VS, would you mind to ask them when they'll be reviewing app and sending invites to us? I think they'll review it after the WVS, but not sure maybe you can ask them directly since you secured the WVS, thx.

 

[msclm]

You said ABB (see above)

Also, I applied to their spring/summer VS, would you mind to ask them when they'll be reviewing app and sending invites to us? I think they'll review it after the WVS, but not sure maybe you can ask them directly since you secured the WVS, thx.

Sure I’ll ask them when I’m there in a few weeks!

 

[Andrei Radu]

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.

Hi @CharlesT47 I think you could justify an interest by focusing on how the strategic objectives of institutional lenders impacts the legal work you do. As a sponsor in a leveraged buyout, you are trying to present the state of the target business in as favourable of a light as possible, to then be able to negotiate the lowest interest rates and most flexible repayment terms possible for as much debt financing as possible. As a lender, you want to scrutinise the target business and the sponsor's proposals as throughly as possible to ensure you can negotiate the best security and interest payments that you can. From this position, looking at the role of lawyers, you could conceptualise the lender's counsel by analogy to a buyer's counsel in M&A transactions: in highly leveraged PE transactions, the baks are putting in most of the money and thus taking on most of the downside risk; as such, they want to be very certain as to the value of the underlying business and the protection offered by the terms of the loan to be willing to provide the necessary financing.

Thus, legal work on behalf of leaders, through due diligence and research to scrutinise target businesses and review proposals of terms, and the negotiations and drafting work done to implement favourable terms, is crucial to safeguard their interest in high-risk transactions. This can be attractive because of the high level of responsibility it can involve and because of the many opportunities to learn about the operations and assets of target businesses and how to value them. Furthermore, working for a lender you will normally get to advise on transactions involving a greater variety of PE funds and on deals in a greater variety of industries (as there are only a few big investment banks, but there are many more active PE funds in the market). Finally, you could also consider how the higher interest rate environment of the last few years has shifted the bargaining position in favour of lenders - after the rise of PE in the 2010s has led to a status quo of very sponsor-friendly terms. Arguably, this means that lawyers acting for investment banks should have more of an opportunity to value-add by pushing for better deal terms, which could be an attractive aspect for up-and-coming lawyers.

 

[M85672]

Does anybody have any idea when VI's for White & Case Summer/Spring will start to be sent out?