For anyone with an upcoming Slaughter and May interview, a student has kindly shared his detailed interview experience.
NB: I have redacted personally identifiable information and a small amount of specific interview information.
--
My Slaughter and May Experience
My Written exercise
My written exercise was very basic, you had to advise the CEO of an online retail company on which of a list of (four I think) suggested strategies by your consulting company should he adopt in order to help him [redacted] (NB: in your capacity as a consultant). The CEO was facing increasing investor pressure to invest the company’s profits or pay dividends and the owner of the company who sat on the board preferred a strategy different from the CEO’s own ([redacted]) so there was a bit of conflict of interest. You have to read about 7 pages of documents and you have a bit of a graph I think so pace yourself. My advice is that you should practice using SWOT and Porters 5, they can help with evaluating an investment decision. You can also have a look at ACCA’s P3 practice questions and answers at
https://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/st...xams-study-resources/p3/past-exam-papers.html
The actual Slaughter and May case study is not as deep as ACCA’s but seeing where they use basic frameworks like SWOT to evaluate strategies could help. ACCA is a professional exam so do not expect to write like them, just look at them as an example of how to use basic frameworks if you need to.
NB: You have to write your recommendation in 2-3 pages only so try to be succinct and legible. You have 1hr, by the way, to read through the docx and provide a recommendation. That’s good time if you plan well.
15 mins to read a current affairs article
After the case study, you are led to the reception to read a current affairs article. Mine was on social media as a threat to our democracy (taking an example from the Brexit referendum) so quite unusual. A partner then picks you up for the Partner interview.
Partner Interview 2 partners
NB: My interview was a tad different because most of my experiences had been in journalism and NGO.
They started by introducing themselves then asked me about [my university] and why I chose to study abroad. They then asked about my interest in commercial law and drilled heavily on this aspect asking about why I was not considering a career in the alternative fields I had dabbled in. At one point in this conversation, they asked about my [subject] grade which was quite low compared to my other grades and asked me what I found difficult in [subject]. They asked how [subject] was assessed to see if I preferred one form of assessment to another. They also asked about (and checked my reasoning behind) my college subject choices, law degree choices, my UCAS choices, choice of University, why I had no vacation schemes, what I had found difficult about adapting to the British educational system, and why what I found difficult felt difficult. During this conversation, I mentioned my [subject] coursework (I used this as bait to bring them to my turf), and then they asked me about my [subject] coursework and we discussed the objective standard of care for a bit (that is what my coursework was on.).
At one point in my conversation, they asked me which other firms I had applied to and where SM fits into my decisions. They also wanted me to prove my interest in commercial law through this question so when I mentioned the Sainsbury-Asda deal they asked me what issues a lawyer will consider if working on that deal (Jaysen’s M&A case study helped here and some wider reading on the deal as well).
After this they moved on to the article I had read asked me to summarise it in two to three words and asked me whether I agreed with some of the arguments. They then drilled on specific issues, particularly, whether social media should be regulated. When I made statements like social media hate ads fuels emotional thinking they asked why I felt that was a wrong thing to do particularly since politicians already play on our emotions (e.g dislike for refugees) to score political points. Key advice: Get prepped to think quickly why certain scenarios are different from another in other to support your argument.
Trainee walk: After your Partner Interview you get to chat with a trainee who shows you around their offices.
HR Interview
The HR Interview is just about discussing what went well during your Case Study and PI and what you feel you could have improved on. She also asks about which other firms you are interviewing with and how you intend to make a decision. I think they were questions about your motivation to have a career in law, but I cannot actually remember. I felt most of it was on you reflecting on your experience. Expect the HR interviewer to write a lot during this session.
*I did not get a TC at SM but If I were to do the AC again my advice will be:
For the CS: Do not freak out. Remember you are already prepped for the task through your previous practice.
For the PI: Practice getting tackled on why commercial law/why not banking or consulting/why not politics or journalism /why this experience and why do you have this and not that etc
Good luck!
