2020-21 Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion

[CJCH]

I had to do this last year as an application for a mini-pupillage! Hand-written apps are still a thing at the Bar. Took me about 2 days and multiple attempts to get it neat enough.

I remember BP Collins required handwritten cover letter for TC application last year, not sure if it is still necessary

*Edit:

To apply for a training contract, applicants must submit a written covering letter (typed is fine) along with their CV. "This helps us identify those who are really interested in joining B P Collins specifically as a handwritten letter requires a lot of effort and attention" says HR Manager Jacqui Symons.

B P Collins LLP - True Picture - Chambers Student Guide

B P Collins LLP - True Picture. The student’s guide to careers in the law.

www.chambersstudent.co.uk

a bit confusing

 

[FM302989]

I had to do this last year as an application for a mini-pupillage! Hand-written apps are still a thing at the Bar. Took me about 2 days and multiple attempts to get it neat enough.

Good grief, they are just fooling around with applicants at this point!

Can we start a new thread of just application horror stories and bizarre moments?

 

[FM302989]

I remember BP Collins required handwritten cover letter for TC application last year, not sure if it is still necessary

*Edit:

To apply for a training contract, applicants must submit a written covering letter (typed is fine) along with their CV. "This helps us identify those who are really interested in joining B P Collins specifically as a handwritten letter requires a lot of effort and attention" says HR Manager Jacqui Symons.

B P Collins LLP - True Picture - Chambers Student Guide

B P Collins LLP - True Picture. The student’s guide to careers in the law.

www.chambersstudent.co.uk

a bit confusing

Oh wow this is actually real!

 

[M1999]

They withdrew my application because they said the scheme was primarily targeted towards undergraduates! I uno-reverse carded them and justified that I could fill those two years with internships while working towards starting a training contract with them in 2023! I was actually inspired by everyone's actions on TCLA who also did the same! Thank you everyone!!

I love this! I hate how they use this excuse by saying you would be waiting 2 years- there’s plenty of things to do in that space!

 

[Asil Ahmad]

This is non-application related sorry. I wanted to know what everyone thinks of the European super league proposal I have thought about it from both a business perspective for law firms and from a football supporter angle. What annoys me about this is that Clifford Chance and Lathan and Watkins are representing the side of the European super league.

 

[LS12]

This is non-application related sorry. I wanted to know what everyone thinks of the European super league proposal I have thought about it from both a business perspective for law firms and from a football supporter angle. What annoys me about this is that Clifford Chance and Lathan and Watkins are representing the side of the European super league.

Out of interest why does it annoy you that L&W and CC are representing the European super league?

 

[CJM.UC]

I love this! I hate how they use this excuse by saying you would be waiting 2 years- there’s plenty of things to do in that space!

Yeah! I think it's strange particularly because if I've applied for the 2023 TC, I wouldn't be making the effort to fill out the application form and do the test for nothing!

I can understand their reasoning to do so though, but having a 2023 TC would allow me to structure the next two years around it.

 

[Asil Ahmad]

Out of interest why does it annoy you that L&W and CC are representing the European super league?

It is going to look bad for them and their reputation is going to go downhill. I know it is more revenue coming into their firm but CC have a really good reputation and I think it will affect their reputation for supporting this proposal. But anyone who wants to have a discussion or a debate about this with me then I am open to it.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

It is going to look bad for them and their reputation is going to go downhill. I know it is more revenue coming into their firm but CC have a really good reputation and I think it will affect their reputation for supporting this proposal. But anyone who wants to have a discussion or a debate about this with me then I am open to it.

Great idea for a thread. If I was knowledgable about law I’d be all over that, but I am just a huge football fan, who thinks this could change football forever, even if it doesn’t go ahead!

Edit - just seen Chelsea are looking to withdraw

 

[Asil Ahmad]

Great idea for a thread. If I was knowledgable about law I’d be all over that, but I am just a huge football fan, who thinks this could change football forever, even if it doesn’t go ahead!

Edit - just seen Chelsea are looking to withdraw

I did not see a thread so just posted it here. Yes that is good news more teams should follow in the foot steps of Chelsea soon also.

 

[Jacob Miller]

It is going to look bad for them and their reputation is going to go downhill. I know it is more revenue coming into their firm but CC have a really good reputation and I think it will affect their reputation for supporting this proposal. But anyone who wants to have a discussion or a debate about this with me then I am open to it.

I have to be completely honest and slightly disagree with you here. Law firms represent controversial clients all the time without reputational damage; representing controversial clients is part of the job. Analogously, criminal QCs don't suffer reputational damage when representing those accused of child sex offences etc, it's just a part of their job.

The ESL is controversial, yes, but ultimately its backers are entitled to legal representation in the same way anyone would be. Extending your argument, some could say those representing Starbucks or Amazon with controversial tax practices suffer reputational damage which, quite simply, isn't the case.

For what it's worth, I also don't think CC or Lathams have a 'better' or 'worse' reputation than most other MC/ SC/ US firms in London.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

I did not see a thread so just posted it here. Yes that is good news more teams should follow in the foot steps of Chelsea soon also.

I am suggesting creating one!

 

[Asil Ahmad]

I have to be completely honest and slightly disagree with you here. Law firms represent controversial clients all the time without reputational damage; representing controversial clients is part of the job. Analogously, criminal QCs don't suffer reputational damage when representing those accused of child sex offences etc, it's just a part of their job.

The ESL is controversial, yes, but ultimately its backers are entitled to legal representation in the same way anyone would be. Extending your argument, some could say those representing Starbucks or Amazon with controversial tax practices suffer reputational damage which, quite simply, isn't the case.

For what it's worth, I also don't think CC or Lathams have a 'better' or 'worse' reputation than most other MC/ SC/ US firms in London.

Love your reply and you have some good points and I was just saying that CC have such a good reputation for the way they deal with things and the way they dealt with the pandemic for their solicitors. But I guess you are right it is the huge money that comes their way. Also, the only reason CC are representing ESL is because J P Morgan is their client.

 

[Matt_96]

That was a time of hand written applications that you sent in the post to firms. It wasn’t all fun and games

When I applied to King & Spalding this year they didn't use Allhires but their own bespoke application form that looked like it was designed to be printed out and handwritten! The old fashioned ways still live on to an extent!

 

[M&ALawyer]

It is going to look bad for them and their reputation is going to go downhill. I know it is more revenue coming into their firm but CC have a really good reputation and I think it will affect their reputation for supporting this proposal. But anyone who wants to have a discussion or a debate about this with me then I am open to it.

As a big football fan, I am not in favour at all of the proposal. It stands against everything football should be about and has serious implications for the future.

Taking my football fan hat off it makes sense for some clubs. Clubs like Tottenham have something like £860m in debt and are in desperate need of cash, especially after the effects of the pandemic. I think this point is being slightly downplayed. If it's not the ESL, other proposals need to be made for cash injections.

I have to be completely honest and slightly disagree with you here. Law firms represent controversial clients all the time without reputational damage; representing controversial clients is part of the job. Analogously, criminal QCs don't suffer reputational damage when representing those accused of child sex offences etc, it's just a part of their job.

The ESL is controversial, yes, but ultimately its backers are entitled to legal representation in the same way anyone would be. Extending your argument, some could say those representing Starbucks or Amazon with controversial tax practices suffer reputational damage which, quite simply, isn't the case.

For what it's worth, I also don't think CC or Lathams have a 'better' or 'worse' reputation than most other MC/ SC/ US firms in London.

I agree with this up to a point. Solicitors and law firms do receive reputational damage for the cases they take on – which can have long-lasting effects. For instance, the backlash on QC Perry after prosecuting Hong Kong activists, and the Extinction Rebellion protest outside S&M for working with clients with high emissions. I think the issue re:reputation is not so much the seriousness of the case being taken on (as you cited with certain offences), but rather how pervasive the issue is in society and what position the public takes.

With the ESL we're already seeing JP Morgan (who agreed to finance the ESL) receive a torrent of bad press for how they do not represent communities (e.g see this link), and how their involvement in the ESL contradicts their values. I think its reasonable to assume the press may turn to law firms facilitating the deal. I think the other issue is, if you're a client of Latham or CC who has an minority interest in a football club (or are an avid fan), you may well be inclined to go to another law firm in retaliation.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

Please can someone make a post for the ESL chat? We actively encourage these types of conversation (in fact, we think our members should discuss things like this more often to help develop their relevant skills and knowledge) but we'd just like to do it in another space so this thread stays on vac scheme updates/questions.

 

[Asil Ahmad]

European Super League

What is everyone's view on the European super league proposal?

www.thecorporatelawacademy.com

 

[Andrew M]

Love your reply and you have some good points and I was just saying that CC have such a good reputation for the way they deal with things and the way they dealt with the pandemic for their solicitors. But I guess you are right it is the huge money that comes their way. Also, the only reason CC are representing ESL is because J P Morgan is their client.

I do find the idea that the ESL could be a potential ethical red line for a magic circle law quite amusing, I have to say! But then I have zero interest in football.

 

[Daniel Boden]

I have to be completely honest and slightly disagree with you here. Law firms represent controversial clients all the time without reputational damage; representing controversial clients is part of the job. Analogously, criminal QCs don't suffer reputational damage when representing those accused of child sex offences etc, it's just a part of their job.

The ESL is controversial, yes, but ultimately its backers are entitled to legal representation in the same way anyone would be. Extending your argument, some could say those representing Starbucks or Amazon with controversial tax practices suffer reputational damage which, quite simply, isn't the case.

For what it's worth, I also don't think CC or Lathams have a 'better' or 'worse' reputation than most other MC/ SC/ US firms in London.

I've always wondered how lawyers wrestle with this on a personal level - some situations must be tough on a personal level e.g. the law firm who advised banking clients pre-financial crisis in 2007/2008. Like at what point are you able to step in? Having studied Ethics on the GDL this year the line seems very blurry at best

 

[Jacob Miller]

I've always wondered how lawyers wrestle with this on a personal level - some situations must be tough on a personal level e.g. the law firm who advised banking clients pre-financial crisis in 2007/2008. Like at what point are you able to step in? Having studied Ethics on the GDL this year the line seems very blurry at best

I find this generally a really interesting discussion. I think, from a personal standpoint, a lot of lawyers get good at separating themselves personally/ emotionally from their work. Their job, obviously within the caveats and constraints of practice rules etc, is to do as good a job for their client as possible and their success is measured by the same. Obviously, these sorts of issues are going to manifest themselves very differently in a commercial context as opposed to a criminal law setting, but I think the principle broadly stays the same.

Before I went down the commercial route, I'd planned to go to the criminal bar in Scotland (and made some headway into it before realising I wanted other things) and this was something I thought about a lot (being asked "oh how could you want to defend someone who's done XYZ?!?!"). I always found it very easy to square with myself: everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a robust defence only serves to strengthen convictions, not weaken them.

That said, I definitely acknowledge that it's easy to say from the perspective, fundamentally, of an outsider. Can I say without a doubt that, if I'd been a lawyer in the run up to the '07 crash, and knew in advance that RBS was going to collapse, that I wouldn't have drained my accounts, or wanted (key word, wanted!) to tell my parents, or my gran, to empty theirs, knowing that they could lose everything they've worked for? Tough one, and almost impossible to answer without being in the situation, but the rules remain rules and they're ultimately there for a reason across every practice area and specialism.