Hey!
No worries at all, and I do completely get why this is playing on your mind - I think it is really difficult to know what "good" looks like for any AC, but particularly for DTC ones.
On the benchmark point, I think one of the trickiest parts of ACs is that there isn't always a fixed bar that you can clearly see and aim for, as most firms will measure different things. However, in reality, firms aren't expecting the most experienced or the most polished candidate in absolute terms (even for DTC) - they are looking for someone who can communicate clearly, show good judgment, and demonstrate potential. This tends to matter a lot more than having loads of experience or being able to answer a commercial question instantly. I also found that the small things (i.e. greeting everyone, being friendly to everyone you meet, encouraging those around you, etc.) all make a big difference too, and I think it is one of the main things I did differently in my DTC AC (as I was slightly less nervous than my other ACs).
On age and maturity, I know it is easier said than done, but I would try not to worry about it in the way you are framing it. Maturity in these settings usually comes across through how you interact - things such as being thoughtful, composed, and respectful. These all usually matter more than how old you are or how much experience you have. You don't need to sound overly formal or experienced, as long as you are clear and professional. Whilst I appreciate a lot of people that apply for DTC are graduates/those with legal experience, everyone in my
Reed Smith DTC was a graduate or current student - it isn't necessarily always people with years of paralegal experience! I don't think firms are necessarily looking for a more 'mature' or 'experienced' candidate in their DTC applications - as it is a training contract, they'll often look for those who are proactive, eager, willing to learn and open to feedback.
I'd also say that the group exercise dynamic that you described is very normal. It is easy to feel like graduates or those with legal experience are performing better because they speak more or sound more confident, but assessors aren't just rewarding whoever talks the most or has the most experience. They are usually looking at how you contribute to the group as a whole, which can be through offering ideas, but equally through things like structuring the discussion, building on someone else's point, asking a useful question, or helping the group make a decision. It is important to remember that even if you feel like you don't know as much as the paralegals/graduates due to not having the experience, you have also made it to the AC stage because you are more than capable - the graduate recruitment team wouldn't have invited you if you weren't!
You don't need to match their level of experience to add value, and strong candidates are sometimes those that help make the discussion more structured and focused, rather than those who contribute the more complex points. Things such as summarising where the group has got to, or gently bringing the conversation back to the task, are really valuable ways to show that you work well in a team beyond contributing ideas.
On the concern about defaulting to a "respect seniors" mindset, I totally get that and I think it is good that you are aware of it. However, in this setting, you're all peers! You can still be polite and collaborative while putting your views forward - it is less about trying to dominate the discussion, and more about actively and clearly participating in the group.
In terms of improving, I have found that it is rarely about completely changing your approach and small adjustments tend to have the biggest impact (e.g. contributing a bit earlier, structuring your points more clearly, being slightly more concise, or making sure you are linking what you are saying back to the task or client). Those kinds of tweaks often just help make sure that your contributions land much more strongly, rather than altering the substance of your contributions altogether. I also would've benefitted from a practice environment for group discussions last cycle, haha! I did find that informal conversations with my friends and those around me (e.g. discussing a commercial topic) can help you get more comfortable with contributing to a commercial conversation in a group setting, so it might be worth giving that a try if you can't arrange a more formal practice!
You definitely aren't alone in feeling this way, and you'll probably find that the graduates/paralegals feel imposter syndrome too - particularly if they are surrounded by second-year or third-year students! One group exercise doesn't determine your overall ability, and I always found that the more I completed, the more confident I got in contributing to the discussion