TC Journey

[CharlesT47]

Hi all, I am a recent graduate and I wanted to keep this thread active as a way to keep myself accountable. I am fortunate enough to have strong academics, and so right now my goal is to get as many interviews as possible. I am hoping for the best.

Applications (To send before October):
Gibson Dunn
HSF
Paul, Weiss
Latham and Watkins Open Day
Hogan Lovells
NRF

Applications: (Already Sent)
1. Sidley Austin
2. Slaughter and May (HK)
3. Macfarlanes


Rejections:
1. Paul, Weiss Open Day
2. HSF Open Day

Success:
1. TCLA x Willkie Open Day
2. Jones Day Interview

 

[CharlesT47]

Reflections on my rejections:
1. HSF open-day:
I tried to be too self-laudatory with my application. I spoke way too much about my own strengths, as opposed to what I wanted to get out of the Open Day. Over the 3 points I made, all 3 were talking about my own achievements and how HSF might cultivate them without digging deep into what I want to get out of the Open Day.


2. Paul, Weiss Open Day:
This is more difficult. I had made an active effort to speak about Paul, Weiss in my application. I think the crucial point was that I made a general observational point about hoping to learn more about PE without tying this point directly to Paul, Weiss. I explained how I wanted to learn more about how lawyers balance tax and competition constraints whilst advising on debt-equity mixes but this is too unspecific. It can be directly applied to any major American firm which specialises in PE and does not show sufficient research into Paul, Weiss.
For the Vac Scheme, I need to better understand what makes Paul, Weiss' PE team stand out. Who do they advise? If I were a sponsor, why would I pick Paul, Weiss over Kirkland?

I think this is right now a weakness in my applications. My Jones Day application succeeded because there wasn't space (nor an expectation) for an application to discuss a recent deal.

 

[CharlesT47]

As of right now, my interest lies in US firms with a strong emphasis on PE. It is difficult to justify applications to other firms such as NRF with less of an emphasis on PE. I will be considering whether it is even worth applying to those firms, especially when they have onerous SJTs/ whatever tests.

 

[Jaysen]

I really like that you are reflecting on your rejections @CharlesT47. This is such an important skill.

I'm also really glad to see the kind of questions you are thinking about (e.g. what makes Paul, Weiss different to other law firms?). We'll be running a few virtual events with Paul, Weiss this year and we'll do our best to lean into these kinds of questions.

Excited to follow your journey this cycle!

 

[ZNadeem]

Reflections on my rejections:
1. HSF open-day:
I tried to be too self-laudatory with my application. I spoke way too much about my own strengths, as opposed to what I wanted to get out of the Open Day. Over the 3 points I made, all 3 were talking about my own achievements and how HSF might cultivate them without digging deep into what I want to get out of the Open Day.


2. Paul, Weiss Open Day:
This is more difficult. I had made an active effort to speak about Paul, Weiss in my application. I think the crucial point was that I made a general observational point about hoping to learn more about PE without tying this point directly to Paul, Weiss. I explained how I wanted to learn more about how lawyers balance tax and competition constraints whilst advising on debt-equity mixes but this is too unspecific. It can be directly applied to any major American firm which specialises in PE and does not show sufficient research into Paul, Weiss.
For the Vac Scheme, I need to better understand what makes Paul, Weiss' PE team stand out. Who do they advise? If I were a sponsor, why would I pick Paul, Weiss over Kirkland?

I think this is right now a weakness in my applications. My Jones Day application succeeded because there wasn't space (nor an expectation) for an application to discuss a recent deal.

Wow, these reflections are really thorough and show a high level of self-awareness, which is exactly the kind of mindset that will improve your applications. I love how you’ve broken down each rejection and honestly analysed what didn’t work.

I also like that you’re thinking strategically about which firms to prioritise, focusing on those aligned with your interests and where your effort can have the biggest impact. That kind of disciplined approach will save you time and help you craft stronger, targeted applications.

Best of luck!

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi all, I am a recent graduate and I wanted to keep this thread active as a way to keep myself accountable. I am fortunate enough to have strong academics, and so right now my goal is to get as many interviews as possible. I am hoping for the best.

Applications (To send before October):
Gibson Dunn
HSF
Paul, Weiss
Latham and Watkins Open Day
Hogan Lovells
NRF

Applications: (Already Sent)
1. Sidley Austin
2. Slaughter and May (HK)
3. Macfarlanes


Rejections:
1. Paul, Weiss Open Day
2. HSF Open Day

Success:
1. TCLA x Willkie Open Day
2. Jones Day Interview

Hi @CharlesT47

I really like how you have broken this down, it makes your progress so easy to follow! Staying organised like this makes such a big difference with applications, and you have already had some successful outcomes which you should be super proud of

As mentioned above, whilst I totally understand that rejections are disheartening, it's really inspiring to see how you have reflected on them and the steps you are going to take moving forward. This is such an important (and tricky!) skill, but definitely one that will benefit you in the long run.

Wishing you all the best in this cycle, and I look forward to following along!

 

[CharlesT47]

Hi, thanks for the encouraging replies!
I have spent the past day and a half labouring over the why commercial law question. I have experiences as a mini-pupil and a consultant and so I am trying to explain why commercial law is right for me, as opposed to those careers. It has been extremely challenging, especially condensing my motivation into a single point.

I have pivoted away from my original reason: An enjoyment of using the law to spot practical/ commercial solutions. This is too simple. Any good barrister does the exact same thing.
I have moved onto a more complex point: An enjoyment of how long term client contact means I can understand the client's needs more holistically and advise pro-actively/ shape their broader strategy using my legal expertise (as opposed to simply acting reactively, as a barrister does). The issue with a more complex point is that it 1) takes more words and 2) is difficult to express.

This is my current draft and any comments would be helpful.

"
I am drawn to commercial law for the opportunity to use legal expertise to shape solutions that reflect a business’ evolving priorities.

As a student consultant for the [Student Consultacy Group], I advised a Spanish art foundation over three weeks where I appreciated how sustained client contact gave me a more holistic understanding of their shifting goals. When I saw they valued data-backed arguments, I created seven statistical graphics to ground my recommendations. When they expressed a desire to grow locally, I identified Spanish porcelain and textile companies with which they could collaborate. I realised that I valued the process of shaping a client’s commercial strategy over time, adapting as priorities changed.

I built on this during an advisory exercise with [legal consultant] where I recommended the most suitable form of finance for a Nigerian skincare company to restart operations. Having analysed their financial documents, I suggested a mortgage secured against land to reduce lending costs and preserve the brand’s main selling point: family control. The aspect I found most rewarding was meeting the challenging of weighing different legal options to find a solution aligned with the company’s long term goals.

To me, commercial law represents the fusion of these experiences. I can do more than reactively solve issues, taking a pro-active role in guiding a client’s broader strategy while ensuring it is grounded in commercial and legal reality. It is this challenge, and the opportunity to meet it, that draws me to commercial law.
"
I am unsatisfied with how wordy it is, especially the first sentence. It is annoying though as this is the final section to change in my Gibson Dunn application.

Anyways, I am attending Willkie's PE seminar today and Hogan Lovells' talk about block-chain technology. Hopefully, this will help ahead of my mock interview tomorrow.

 

[ZNadeem]

Hi, thanks for the encouraging replies!
I have spent the past day and a half labouring over the why commercial law question. I have experiences as a mini-pupil and a consultant and so I am trying to explain why commercial law is right for me, as opposed to those careers. It has been extremely challenging, especially condensing my motivation into a single point.

I have pivoted away from my original reason: An enjoyment of using the law to spot practical/ commercial solutions. This is too simple. Any good barrister does the exact same thing.
I have moved onto a more complex point: An enjoyment of how long term client contact means I can understand the client's needs more holistically and advise pro-actively/ shape their broader strategy using my legal expertise (as opposed to simply acting reactively, as a barrister does). The issue with a more complex point is that it 1) takes more words and 2) is difficult to express.

This is my current draft and any comments would be helpful.

"
I am drawn to commercial law for the opportunity to use legal expertise to shape solutions that reflect a business’ evolving priorities.

As a student consultant for the [Student Consultacy Group], I advised a Spanish art foundation over three weeks where I appreciated how sustained client contact gave me a more holistic understanding of their shifting goals. When I saw they valued data-backed arguments, I created seven statistical graphics to ground my recommendations. When they expressed a desire to grow locally, I identified Spanish porcelain and textile companies with which they could collaborate. I realised that I valued the process of shaping a client’s commercial strategy over time, adapting as priorities changed.

I built on this during an advisory exercise with [legal consultant] where I recommended the most suitable form of finance for a Nigerian skincare company to restart operations. Having analysed their financial documents, I suggested a mortgage secured against land to reduce lending costs and preserve the brand’s main selling point: family control. The aspect I found most rewarding was meeting the challenging of weighing different legal options to find a solution aligned with the company’s long term goals.

To me, commercial law represents the fusion of these experiences. I can do more than reactively solve issues, taking a pro-active role in guiding a client’s broader strategy while ensuring it is grounded in commercial and legal reality. It is this challenge, and the opportunity to meet it, that draws me to commercial law.
"
I am unsatisfied with how wordy it is, especially the first sentence. It is annoying though as this is the final section to change in my Gibson Dunn application.

Anyways, I am attending Willkie's PE seminar today and Hogan Lovells' talk about block-chain technology. Hopefully, this will help ahead of my mock interview tomorrow.

Hi! I would say this is a bit wordy — the core idea is strong, but it gets buried. You are on the right track with picking a USP niche to commercial law! However, right now, you’ve given a lot of Evidence (detailed stories) but not enough Analysis tying it clearly back to why this makes commercial law the right career for you.


Here’s what I’d suggest in line with PEA:

• Point – upfront, one concise sentence capturing your motivation (e.g. “I am drawn to commercial law because it allows me to build long-term relationships with clients and proactively shape strategies that address both legal and commercial challenges.”).
• Evidence – briefly summarise one example only. Don’t retell the whole story, just the key action and what you learned.
• Analysis – after each, explain why it matters — how it links to your enjoyment of proactive, holistic client advisory work, and why that makes commercial law the best fit.

So instead of long paragraphs of detail, the E is lean, and the A does the heavy lifting. That way, the first sentence immediately gives your reader the crux of your answer, and everything else slots into place to support it.