-
Hey Guest, the first open day of the new cycle has opened! Click here to apply to Simpson Thacher by 1 July 2026.
TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
- Thread starter Ram Sabaratnam
- Start date
BCLP DTC PFO. I sent the app 17 May and took the test 18 May. Think this is now PFO number 33…
I’ve seen somewhere in this thread that firms are more picky with DTCs than Vac Schemers - bcuz for DTCs, I’m told that firms want trainee ready people, not just students looking to explore. But please do correct me if I’m wrong!
As a person’s finished the Barrister’s Training Course, may I know if this gives me any advantage? If so, what are the advantages? (E.g, stronger advocacy skills??).
Thank you very much!
As a person’s finished the Barrister’s Training Course, may I know if this gives me any advantage? If so, what are the advantages? (E.g, stronger advocacy skills??).
Thank you very much!
Hey!
I think there is some truth to that, but I would be careful not to overstate the VS vs DTC distinction. Firms do generally expect DTC applicants to show a bit more certainty around wanting a career in law and understanding the trainee role, but DTC offers are still ultimately made on potential as well as readiness (rather than whether someone already feels like a trainee!). I was successful through the DTC route, and I didn't have a substantial amount of legal experience to show I was ready for the role of a trainee (apart from a paralegal placement year and some VS').
On the BTC specifically, I do think there can be advantages if you frame it well rather than assuming the qualification speaks for itself. Advocacy is absolutely one (especially communicating clearly under pressure), but I would also highlight things like handling complex information quickly, responding to challenge, structured analysis, and confidence interacting with clients. Additionally, depending on the firm, experience with drafting and managing competing arguments can also transfer really well to the role of a solicitor/trainee.
One thing I would add though is that if you have completed the BTC, firms may probe a bit more into your reasons for pursuing a TC rather than pupillage. This isn't necessarily in a negative way, but they'll want to understand whether this has been a recent shift, what changed, and why commercial law is now the better fit for your long-term goals. So I'd make sure that you have a clear and positive narrative around that transition - focusing less on why you moved away from the bar, and more on what draws you towards the solicitor route and that firm specifically
Hi Abbie! Thank you for the helpful answer - yes, during the BTC were made to learn practical skills like conference (talking to clients, draw out more info to help them present their case, be nice and empathetic etc). So not everything is identical to the SQE, but it’s not entirely useless - there are transferable skills.Hey!
I think there is some truth to that, but I would be careful not to overstate the VS vs DTC distinction. Firms do generally expect DTC applicants to show a bit more certainty around wanting a career in law and understanding the trainee role, but DTC offers are still ultimately made on potential as well as readiness (rather than whether someone already feels like a trainee!). I was successful through the DTC route, and I didn't have a substantial amount of legal experience to show I was ready for the role of a trainee (apart from a paralegal placement year and some VS').
On the BTC specifically, I do think there can be advantages if you frame it well rather than assuming the qualification speaks for itself. Advocacy is absolutely one (especially communicating clearly under pressure), but I would also highlight things like handling complex information quickly, responding to challenge, structured analysis, and confidence interacting with clients. Additionally, depending on the firm, experience with drafting and managing competing arguments can also transfer really well to the role of a solicitor/trainee.
One thing I would add though is that if you have completed the BTC, firms may probe a bit more into your reasons for pursuing a TC rather than pupillage. This isn't necessarily in a negative way, but they'll want to understand whether this has been a recent shift, what changed, and why commercial law is now the better fit for your long-term goals. So I'd make sure that you have a clear and positive narrative around that transition - focusing less on why you moved away from the bar, and more on what draws you towards the solicitor route and that firm specifically
And actually I’ve always wanted to be a solicitor, because my uni focuses a lot on commercial awareness and asking bigger law firms to come to career fairs. It’s more like the people around me and my education so far? It’s something like this: I got influences by my surroundings / peers.
During my applications this round, I have tried to explain that I prefer being a solicitor over a barrister because barristers do a lot of law, whereas for solicitors they handle their work while considering issues in that sector / industry - like sanctions, war, or just increasing gov regulation. It just gives a lot more variety to my work life?? Is this a valid reason?
Last edited:
Hi everyone,
Recently received a PFO and in the general feedback (wasn't specific to my application), they said that students should not focus on one practice area when answering why the firm since they are a full-service firm, this pretty much contradicts what I have seen from many successful candidates who pinpoint a specifc practice area, a deal within that practice area etc, citing this as a reason for why the firm?
Thoughts?
Recently received a PFO and in the general feedback (wasn't specific to my application), they said that students should not focus on one practice area when answering why the firm since they are a full-service firm, this pretty much contradicts what I have seen from many successful candidates who pinpoint a specifc practice area, a deal within that practice area etc, citing this as a reason for why the firm?
Thoughts?
Are you talking about Reed Smith’s recent general feedback? It sounds like the general feedback I got after getting rejected from their DTC. I was surprised by this feedback for the same reasons as you are. But then apparently theres another way to do this - e.g u could talk about a second practice that’s related - like PE and M&A? For example I did PE and Football for the Reed Smith’s q on “a news that interests u and whats the impact on RS?”. Anyway, I got rejected - but I’m not sure if it’s bcuz of this q.
Yeah i'm referencing RS's feedback, i specifically spoke about Shipping (generic ik) but i have a very close connection with that type of work so I thought it would be fine as it links to me very specifically. I referenced PE and Restructuring and Insolvency as practice areas for the issues affecting one of RS industry groups with the main issue being rising gilt yields affecting the financial services industy group.
I scored 22 on the Amberjack and i also have a low 2:1 (62%) supplemented by a master's degree at a RG with multiple first class marks (4), my written answers were strong having been reviewed by trainees, so im just going to put it down to my academics not being competitive enough.
I’m not tooooo sure about the academics bit - a Masters degree@RG and a 2:1 undergrad should place u in a much better position than most applicants tho …
it's always so difficult to be sure, i just always cite my academics as the main thing since ik other applicants have better academics and my app writing is strong since i always pass the written stage.
With the VI, it definitely could have been that, although I personally felt were decent enough.
i'm pretty certain most applicants have a better undergrad then 62%, although it could have been my VI, i think my written answers were strong because i always pass first stage and i'd say i'm good at the writing strong answers.
It's definitely the VI because I think they already considered your academics and work beforehand to give the assessment and VI in the first place, but that's what I believe.
I think that was probably like an automatic benchmark, like having a minimum 2:1, at this stage befiore the AC, the academics were probably more closely scrutinised, it specifically says in the email ''We have now had the opportunity to assess your High Potential Legal Assessment, Video Interview, and written submission. Your responses were reviewed manually by a member of the Early Careers Team' - this to me, suggests they have only now looked at my entire profile holistically.
The reason why i believe it wasn't the VI was because people were getting PFO's before the written app stage, which suggests the VI needed to be of a good standard. Saying this though, it may be the case that their Amberjack score wasn't good enough, although mine was only 22.
It could certainly be the case that my VI was the reason for the PFO, but when i look at my notes and the general feedback they give and just my experience with multiple AC's at the big firms, I personally think it was good enough.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
Latest posts
-
TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
- Latest: DaemonBlackFyre
-
-
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2026-27
- Latest: Abbie Whitlock
-
-
Top Members
Posts
-
Abbie Whitlock
- +0
- 18
Non Billable
- +3
- 11
Gioiabwear Yong
- +88
- 9
lucky2
-
New
- 7
QuillandCounsel
- +19
- 6
-
Abbie Whitlock
- +0
- 95
Jaysen
- +0
- 26
Non Billable
-
New
- 24
AryanAgg
- +15
- 21
-
Abbie Whitlock
- +3
- 704
Novaa
- +289
- 410
Jessica Pearson - Managing Partner
- +550
- 365