Hey!
Firstly, I'm sorry to hear about the PFO.
I don't think this feedback necessarily contradicts what you have seen from successful candidates, and I think there is a bit of nuance in what firms mean here.
I'd say it is definitely good to express an interest in a specific area of law (for example, one of my own main motivations for applying to
Reed Smith was their Transportation practice), especially if that firm is known for strength in that area. Mentioning a particular practice area, sector or deal can be a really effective way of showing research and explaining why that firm stands out to you.
The thing I would be careful of is sounding too fixed or exclusionary. For a full-service firm, graduate recruitment knows that trainees rotate through multiple seats and may end up enjoying something completely different from what they expected. They also might not be able to do a seat in their preferred area of choice, simply due to business needs or the interests of the rest of their cohort. So if an answer reads as "I only want to do PE" or "I'm applying because of your litigation team and nothing else", it can sometimes raise concerns around openness to the broader training experience (not that I'm saying you did this in your application, just some general thoughts!).
I think the strongest approach is usually to combine:
- A specific interest (practice area / sector / deal)
- A broader reason for choosing the firm
For example, in my
Reed Smith application, I discussed the Transportation sector and why I was interested in it. However, I also highlighted that their sector approach would allow me to experience a wide range of practice areas, and their pro bono work was another area I was interested in too.
This shows conviction and research without sounding like you have chosen your NQ seat before you have even started. Overall, I wouldn't take that feedback as "don't mention a practice area you are interested in", as you should definitely do that! To me, it sounds a bit more like they are expecting people to come across a bit more open-minded and interested in the wider platform the firm offers.
Whilst I wouldn't be able to say definitively either way, I thought I'd share my thoughts on this point as I sat in the Early Careers team at
Reed Smith during my SQE placement this year.
From conversations I had with the team and more generally, my impression was that there was a lot of emphasis placed on the application answers and the wider assessment process rather than purely academics.
The application process has changed slightly since I applied via DTC, and I'll also caveat that my placement was during the VS process which I believe was also different. Generally speaking, my understanding is that academics are still an important factor and are considered throughout the process. However, once you have met the required academic standard and progressed through the initial stages, other factors often start to carry more weight in differentiating candidates.
Because of that, if you progressed to the second stage and already met the minimum academic requirements, I personally wouldn't immediately assume that academics were the deciding factor. It could be things like application answers, VI performance, communication style, or sometimes the wider cohort is just stronger than usual. I would also try not to get too hung up on the general feedback if you feel it doesn't apply to you. I appreciate it can be frustrating to not know where you could improve (+ I've definitely felt a similar way multiple times in the past), but generic feedback has to be quite broad and doesn't necessarily reflect the deciding factor in an individual application - particularly if you generally feel confident in your written applications and are consistently progressing through those stages.
I also wouldn't discount your point about the VI earlier - I think that they can be surprisingly difficult to judge from the candidate side as it is tricky to know what the assessors are looking for. In the past I've felt confident in VI's and not progressed, but also felt I'd completely failed it and then received an offer.
If you are consistently passing written stages though, I would try to see that as quite an encouraging sign as it suggests your application writing and underlying motivations are landing well! I know it probably doesn't feel like that after a rejection, but getting through those stages repeatedly is still evidence that you are doing a lot of things right - sometimes it genuinely can just come down to fit, relative performance in that batch, or what that particular cohort looked like rather than there being a fundamental issue with your application.
