Basically I made a mistake on the solution of my legal interview. The scenario was that the client was setting up a company with two friends. He and his two friends were setting up a company and wanted advice on this. After questioning him, I advised that he should set up a shelf company, and while he asked whether there was an alternative, I explained the alternative (regular method of incorporation, memorandum of associate , articles of association.. slower) and suggested the advantages of the shelf company which he seemed happy with. I also matched this up with the fact that he wanted to set the company up as quickly as possible. However, when it came to providing a solution on whether he wanted more power/control over the company to reflect his investment (it was more than the two friends combined), this was where my solution went wrong. I suggested that he should ask if he can be a chairman first with a casting vote, and if the two friends disagree then he can ask to be appointed an executive director. Yes , a chairman's casting vote is still relevant in a company of three directors. For example, 1 of the 3 directors can abstain from voting at a board meeting which could mean there is potential for deadlock. If either of the other two directors is the chairperson with casting vote then deadlock would be avoided However, I didn’t explain this. I had also mentioned that he can be a chairman and an executive director (and the articles can be amended accordingly) However, the problem is, that when it came to the follow up tasks, i asked him to ask his friends first if they can approve of him being a chairman, and if they are unhappy with that, ask if he can become an executive director. My suggested next steps contradicted my earlier position ,whereby I suggested he can be both chairman and given executive director powers as the articles can be amended. I panicked. Where I also really ****ed up was not explaining the scenario where being a chairman will help him , all I said was he would have a casting vote in case of deadlock. Lastly in parting , I got the supervisors name wrong as alternative contact. Assuming the rest of my interview was okay, are these mistakes enough to fail? How much weight they attribute to errors is unclear. I guess I did provide a solution but the problem is it was not really a good one.