Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Interviews Discussion
Definitive Guide to Law Firm Interviews! *Monday Article Series*
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jacob Miller" data-source="post: 55585" data-attributes="member: 5063"><p>Hey Rachel, </p><p></p><p>Glad you've enjoyed the series and congratulations on securing the NRF AC! </p><p></p><p>My gut instinct would always be to talk about the story/ issue which you feel the most comfortable discussing: if you have a genuine interest, this will come over better 99 times out of 100. I 100% understand the slight concern about the fact that it's American as opposed to British, but NRF are a worldwide firm with around a dozen US offices so any spill-over into EMEA would almost certainly involve the London office. I would suggest bringing this angle into it so you can show a good understanding of the interactions between different offices etc. I wouldn't let the fact that it's speculative put you off, I would personally just approach this by outlining the potential repercussions of the different judgements that the USSC could issue. </p><p></p><p>With that said, both of the options you've got would be very apt for discussion in an answer like this. If you were really worried about it, you could always prepare both and, when asked, headline the two options and allow the interviewer to choose. I normally did this and I tended to feel that interviewers liked it as it showed a broader understanding than just a single issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jacob Miller, post: 55585, member: 5063"] Hey Rachel, Glad you've enjoyed the series and congratulations on securing the NRF AC! My gut instinct would always be to talk about the story/ issue which you feel the most comfortable discussing: if you have a genuine interest, this will come over better 99 times out of 100. I 100% understand the slight concern about the fact that it's American as opposed to British, but NRF are a worldwide firm with around a dozen US offices so any spill-over into EMEA would almost certainly involve the London office. I would suggest bringing this angle into it so you can show a good understanding of the interactions between different offices etc. I wouldn't let the fact that it's speculative put you off, I would personally just approach this by outlining the potential repercussions of the different judgements that the USSC could issue. With that said, both of the options you've got would be very apt for discussion in an answer like this. If you were really worried about it, you could always prepare both and, when asked, headline the two options and allow the interviewer to choose. I normally did this and I tended to feel that interviewers liked it as it showed a broader understanding than just a single issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Interviews Discussion
Definitive Guide to Law Firm Interviews! *Monday Article Series*
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…