Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forum Home
Law Firms
Wiki
Events
Deadlines
Members
Leaderboards
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Premium Database
TCLA Premium:
Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Disgruntled SQE Student" data-source="post: 231071" data-attributes="member: 39115"><p>Absolutely. It's an extremely normal thing. In reality, most law firms of similar tiers will do quite similar things in quite similar ways. They are distinguished solely by culture and training. You need lawyers on both sides of an M&A deal after all. This changes slightly the smaller you get but is generally true for the massive full service firms. They will have their specialisms, but applying to train with the notion that you want to work only in the department they are known for may come across wrong on the application. </p><p></p><p>Honestly, a lot of people are drawn especially to the US mega firms for the wrong reasons. They demand a very particular type of person willing to work in a particular environment, and the firm themselves are not really willing to compromise what has worked for them to make sure you fit in. Not wanting to work in that environment (where the stereotype of US firms can be true) is totally understandable. The difficulty of landing a TC is trying to generate passion for the 27th law firm in a row you're applying to, it's unrealistic... </p><p></p><p>Being selective is not a problem theoretically if you have a CV and experience portfolio to back it up. Unfortunately, aspiration without experience is unlikely to be enough for most firms to want you when their candidate pool is so large enough with people that fit the bill. Of course, you never know if you don't try, but the recommendation is to try and find some motivators as to why you want to work there. It may not be your first choice firm, but if you like (or think you like) generally other things about the firm, talking about their practice areas can actually come second. The advantage that gives you is that if you have no long term legal experience, you don't actually really know what working in a law firm is like, and different departments are very different. Focusing on training quality, culture and broadly their existence in the market can be an alternative angle than practice areas. For instance, without having worked there, Ashurst's strengths are broadly projects, finance and disputes (all surrounding energy, infrastructure and construction). You may know very little about these practice areas, but a merger with Perkins Coie is an attractive opportunity to work in a market that had previously been difficult to access. Demand driven by US clients to have fully fleshed out cross border practices means that trainees post merger are going to have an advantage in a new market. </p><p></p><p>This is a bit of a run on, but I hope you can see that there is a way around focusing on the traditional application format.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Disgruntled SQE Student, post: 231071, member: 39115"] Absolutely. It's an extremely normal thing. In reality, most law firms of similar tiers will do quite similar things in quite similar ways. They are distinguished solely by culture and training. You need lawyers on both sides of an M&A deal after all. This changes slightly the smaller you get but is generally true for the massive full service firms. They will have their specialisms, but applying to train with the notion that you want to work only in the department they are known for may come across wrong on the application. Honestly, a lot of people are drawn especially to the US mega firms for the wrong reasons. They demand a very particular type of person willing to work in a particular environment, and the firm themselves are not really willing to compromise what has worked for them to make sure you fit in. Not wanting to work in that environment (where the stereotype of US firms can be true) is totally understandable. The difficulty of landing a TC is trying to generate passion for the 27th law firm in a row you're applying to, it's unrealistic... Being selective is not a problem theoretically if you have a CV and experience portfolio to back it up. Unfortunately, aspiration without experience is unlikely to be enough for most firms to want you when their candidate pool is so large enough with people that fit the bill. Of course, you never know if you don't try, but the recommendation is to try and find some motivators as to why you want to work there. It may not be your first choice firm, but if you like (or think you like) generally other things about the firm, talking about their practice areas can actually come second. The advantage that gives you is that if you have no long term legal experience, you don't actually really know what working in a law firm is like, and different departments are very different. Focusing on training quality, culture and broadly their existence in the market can be an alternative angle than practice areas. For instance, without having worked there, Ashurst's strengths are broadly projects, finance and disputes (all surrounding energy, infrastructure and construction). You may know very little about these practice areas, but a merger with Perkins Coie is an attractive opportunity to work in a market that had previously been difficult to access. Demand driven by US clients to have fully fleshed out cross border practices means that trainees post merger are going to have an advantage in a new market. This is a bit of a run on, but I hope you can see that there is a way around focusing on the traditional application format. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…