TCLA Spring & Summer Vacation Scheme Thread 2026

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi @Abbie Whitlock I hope you are doing well! I've just sat for around an hour going through this thread and taking notes for my upcoming vac scheme in 2 weeks and I just want to say a HUGE thank you for all the help.

I have a few questions which I would really appreciate you having a look at, or if already answered, directing me to the relevant thread.

The firm I am "vac-scheming" with has made it clear that vac-schemers will be involved in:

• Drafting legal documents such as briefs, contracts, and client memoranda;
• Assisting in drafting and negotiation sessions;
• Shadowing client meetings or calls;
• Performing due diligence in corporate transactions.

I was wondering if you could:

1. Clarify the differences between briefs, contracts, and client memoranda in terms of the tasks I might be given and the approach I should take with them.

2. What do they mean by drafting and negotiation sessions- what is expected of me here?

3. When shadowing client meetings/calls what else can I do apart from take minutes? Am I expected to contribute/give my perspective?

I appreciate those are quite long-winded questions so thank you so much in advance!

Hi!

I am doing well, thank you - I hope you are too! That is really kind of you to say, and I'm so glad you have found the thread helpful! Huge congratulations on securing the vacation scheme

In relation to your first question, I'd say that this can vary a bit between firms and teams, but I can share my broader understanding. The main difference is usually the purpose of the document.

• Client memoranda tend to be more advisory and explanatory - you'll often be asked to summarise a legal issue, explain the relevant position, apply it to the facts and then identify the practical implications and any next steps.
• Contracts are generally more drafting focused and detailed-oriented, so the emphasis shifts to wording, structure, and whether provisions actually reflect the commercial deal that the parties are trying to achieve.
• Briefs can mean slightly different things depending on the context, but I would think of them as shorter and more focused documents that are used to summarise issues, background, or offer recommendations.

Across all of them, I would try not to overcomplicate things - clear, concise and commercially aware writing usually goes much further than trying to sound overly technical. If you are ever unsure, I would just reach out to your supervisor or trainee buddy, as I'm sure they'd be happy to confirm the type of structure or content they are looking for!

In terms of drafting and negotiation exercises, I'm not 100% sure but I personally wouldn't interpret this as meaning you'll be expected to negotiate yourself. Vacation schemers are often observing discussions around document changes, seeing how supervisors balance legal and commercial considerations, and understanding how different parties reach agreement. I found that one of the most useful things you can do is pay attention to why the changes are being suggested - sometimes the answer is legal risk, but often it is about commercial priorities, client relationships, or achieving a more practical outcome.

For client meetings and calls, I wouldn't feel pressure to contribute unless you are invited to, and a lot of the value comes from simply observing rather than speaking. I personally attended a few client meetings during my vacation schemes last year, and the emphasis was on observing and taking notes, rather than directly contributing. I'd focus on things like how lawyers structure conversations, explain complex points clearly to clients, ask questions, manage client expectations, and interact generally with clients. If there is an opportunity afterwards, I always think it can be worth asking your supervisor questions like what the objective of the meeting was, whether there was anything strategic going on in the background, or why certain points were approached in a particular way. I often found that my supervisor would ask for my views on the topics discussed after the meeting, and this was a great way for me to share my opinion and ask further questions.

Importantly, don't feel like you need to know how to do all of this before you arrive, as nobody is expecting that! Supervisors and grad rec are usually looking for curiosity, enthusiasm, and a willingness to engage with the work - you can learn the more technical things whilst on the scheme!

I hope that helps, and best of luck - I'm sure you'll do great, and I hope you enjoy it too!

 

[Jessica Pearson - Managing Partner]

Hello I have a question for @Jaysen and @Abbie Whitlock
I have an essay writing task for a law firm about a topic. I am unsure as to what exactly they are looking for and how to structure my response. Any advice would be very much appreciated.

 

[co1004co]

Hi!

I am doing well, thank you - I hope you are too! That is really kind of you to say, and I'm so glad you have found the thread helpful! Huge congratulations on securing the vacation scheme

In relation to your first question, I'd say that this can vary a bit between firms and teams, but I can share my broader understanding. The main difference is usually the purpose of the document.

• Client memoranda tend to be more advisory and explanatory - you'll often be asked to summarise a legal issue, explain the relevant position, apply it to the facts and then identify the practical implications and any next steps.
• Contracts are generally more drafting focused and detailed-oriented, so the emphasis shifts to wording, structure, and whether provisions actually reflect the commercial deal that the parties are trying to achieve.
• Briefs can mean slightly different things depending on the context, but I would think of them as shorter and more focused documents that are used to summarise issues, background, or offer recommendations.

Across all of them, I would try not to overcomplicate things - clear, concise and commercially aware writing usually goes much further than trying to sound overly technical. If you are ever unsure, I would just reach out to your supervisor or trainee buddy, as I'm sure they'd be happy to confirm the type of structure or content they are looking for!

In terms of drafting and negotiation exercises, I'm not 100% sure but I personally wouldn't interpret this as meaning you'll be expected to negotiate yourself. Vacation schemers are often observing discussions around document changes, seeing how supervisors balance legal and commercial considerations, and understanding how different parties reach agreement. I found that one of the most useful things you can do is pay attention to why the changes are being suggested - sometimes the answer is legal risk, but often it is about commercial priorities, client relationships, or achieving a more practical outcome.

For client meetings and calls, I wouldn't feel pressure to contribute unless you are invited to, and a lot of the value comes from simply observing rather than speaking. I personally attended a few client meetings during my vacation schemes last year, and the emphasis was on observing and taking notes, rather than directly contributing. I'd focus on things like how lawyers structure conversations, explain complex points clearly to clients, ask questions, manage client expectations, and interact generally with clients. If there is an opportunity afterwards, I always think it can be worth asking your supervisor questions like what the objective of the meeting was, whether there was anything strategic going on in the background, or why certain points were approached in a particular way. I often found that my supervisor would ask for my views on the topics discussed after the meeting, and this was a great way for me to share my opinion and ask further questions.

Importantly, don't feel like you need to know how to do all of this before you arrive, as nobody is expecting that! Supervisors and grad rec are usually looking for curiosity, enthusiasm, and a willingness to engage with the work - you can learn the more technical things whilst on the scheme!

I hope that helps, and best of luck - I'm sure you'll do great, and I hope you enjoy it too!

Thank you so so so much!

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hello I have a question for @Jaysen and @Abbie Whitlock
I have an essay writing task for a law firm about a topic. I am unsure as to what exactly they are looking for and how to structure my response. Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Hey!

It is difficult to say for certain without seeing the instructions or knowing what firm it is, as different firms may be assessing slightly different things or be looking for something specific. However, I had to write an essay about a topic for one of my vacation schemes and I generally approached it in much the same way as I would a university essay.

The first thing I did was identify the key action word in the question, or have a clear idea of what the instructions were telling me to do (e.g. "analyse", "compare", "evaluate", "discuss", etc.), as this usually gives a strong indication of what the assessors are looking for. For example, an "analyse" question will typically require you to explore the reasons behind an issue and assess its implications, whereas a "compare" question will require you to weigh different perspectives against each other.

In terms of structure, I personally kept it relatively simple. I started with a brief introduction that set out the context of the topic and identified the main points/issues that I intended to discuss. The main body then focused on a small number of key points, making sure that each section linked back to the question and developed my overall argument. Finally, I finished with a conclusion that pulled together the main themes and answer the question/prompt directly, rather than simply repeating what I had already said.

One thing I would add is that, although I approached it similarly to a university essay, I was conscious that a law firm is often interested in more than just your ability to write academically. Depending on the topic, it might be worth considering the commercial, practical, or wider industry implications of the issue as well, rather than viewing it simply from an academic perspective. In my experience, demonstrating clear reasoning, a logical structure, and an ability to engage with the topic in a balanced way is often more important than trying to produce an overly technical or heavily referenced piece (which you might do for a university essay).

If you had any further information or any other questions, please do feel free to share - happy to help in any way I can!

 

[blcnko]

if anyone has done a White & Case Spring Scheme, and would be open to sharing their experience that would be really really helpful

 

[co1004co]

Hi @Abbie Whitlock and all (me again), i was wondering whether you had any tips on networking both formal and informal and how to know when to ask certain questions.

My scheme has organised a lot of QnA panels during breakfast and lunches which I gather are more formal networking sessions and also have some more relaxed ones.

In terms of the more formal ones how do I ask about practice areas/deals without just asking "what is an interesting deal you have worked on recently" which sounds a little redundant.

In terms of more relaxed scenarios, I know that lawyers don't love 24/7 talk about deals and work and also might not be able to talk too much about specific things. Are there any good non-law questions that you have asked/heard anyone else ask that keep the conversation going?

Thanks so mcuh

 

[haribolover]

Hi all, I feel like I messed up on a case study I recently did. I now feel a bit rubbish and just need some advice on how fatal it will be to my application. I know I need to move on but I feel like I just made such a silly mistake

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi @Abbie Whitlock and all (me again), i was wondering whether you had any tips on networking both formal and informal and how to know when to ask certain questions.

My scheme has organised a lot of QnA panels during breakfast and lunches which I gather are more formal networking sessions and also have some more relaxed ones.

In terms of the more formal ones how do I ask about practice areas/deals without just asking "what is an interesting deal you have worked on recently" which sounds a little redundant.

In terms of more relaxed scenarios, I know that lawyers don't love 24/7 talk about deals and work and also might not be able to talk too much about specific things. Are there any good non-law questions that you have asked/heard anyone else ask that keep the conversation going?

Thanks so mcuh

Hi!

No problem at all, this is a great question!

I always found thinking of questions on the spot quite daunting (+ I still do at networking events, haha!), so I completely understand wanting to go in with a few ideas prepared - especially for the more relaxed sessions where there is less structure, and you suddenly feel like you should be making conversation! I actually found having a few "go-to" questions in mind really helped me feel more relaxed as I could then focus on listening rather than trying to think of the perfect thing to ask next.

For the more formal Q&A sessions, I would try to move slightly deeper than "what interesting deal have you worked on". This question is completely fine, but you can often get more in-depth or interesting answers by asking about things like:
1. What makes a matter interesting or challenging from a lawyer's perspective?
2. What surprised you most when you joined this practice area?
3. What does a really good trainee do in this seat?
4. What skills become more important as you become more senior?
5. How has the practice changed over the last few years?
6. What type of client problems are becoming more common?

I always personally found questions about how lawyers think a bit more interesting than questions about what lawyers did.

For the more relaxed networking sessions, I think people really do underestimate how much lawyers enjoy normal conversations. You absolutely do not need to talk about deals all evening!

Some questions that could work well include:
1. What made you choose this firm?
2. If you had your TC again, would you choose the same seats?
3. What surprised you most about becoming a lawyer?
4. What does a typical week actually look like?
5. What do you enjoy outside work?
6. What is something trainees worry about that they really don't need to?
7. If someone was starting their first week tomorrow, what advice would you give them?

These types of questions are still connected to law and the networking event, but they also give you the opportunity to learn more about each person as an individual. That often leads to more interesting conversations and can give you better insight into their career path, what they actually enjoy about the role, how they made decisions throughout their career, and what the culture of the team and firm feels like in practice.

I also would try not to feel too much pressure to keep firing questions. If someone mentions something interesting, such as working abroad or doing something before law, I would follow that and ask them to go into more detail. Those conversations often end up feeling much more natural than trying to get through a list.

I hope you have an amazing scheme, and it sounds like you are preparing really well for it already!

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi all, I feel like I messed up on a case study I recently did. I now feel a bit rubbish and just need some advice on how fatal it will be to my application. I know I need to move on but I feel like I just made such a silly mistake

Hey

I am really sorry to hear you are feeling like this - I always found case studies particularly difficult afterwards as you usually have time to replay every answer and spot things you wish you had done differently.

Without knowing the mistake, it is hard to say how much impact it would have. However, I would try not to assume that one moment automatically makes the entire application fatal. Off the top of my head, I can remember two main instances where I was convinced I had messed up an assessed task at a final AC.

One was for a final TC AC, where I ran out of time on the written assessment and had to rush the end, which meant I didn't quite finish everything I wanted to say and didn't get to finish the formalities. The other was at a VS AC, where I felt I hadn't spoken enough during the group exercise - this was to the point where people in my group were actively prompting me and asking if I wanted to add anything. However, on both occasions, I still ended up receiving an offer.

That obviously doesn't mean every mistake is irrelevant, but I think it is a good reminder that we tend to ruminate on the moments that felt uncomfortable or imperfect and give much less weight to the things that actually went well. Firms are usually assessing across a range of things, rather than looking for flawless performance. If the rest of your performance was strong, a silly mistake is unlikely to be fatal.

If it helps, you could reflect on:

• Was it a factual mistake, or a judgement call?
• Did it affect your whole answer, or one small part?
• Did you still explain your reasoning clearly?

Candidates are often much more aware of their own mistakes than interviewers are, and something that feels huge to you may have come across as a very normal slip in an otherwise strong performance. I really would try not to score yourself retrospectively, as you don't necessarily know what they are looking for and what they value. I would give yourself credit for getting through the exercise and try not to let one moment define how you feel about the whole application.

Fingers crossed for the outcome!

 

[haribolover]

Hey

I am really sorry to hear you are feeling like this - I always found case studies particularly difficult afterwards as you usually have time to replay every answer and spot things you wish you had done differently.

Without knowing the mistake, it is hard to say how much impact it would have. However, I would try not to assume that one moment automatically makes the entire application fatal. Off the top of my head, I can remember two main instances where I was convinced I had messed up an assessed task at a final AC.

One was for a final TC AC, where I ran out of time on the written assessment and had to rush the end, which meant I didn't quite finish everything I wanted to say and didn't get to finish the formalities. The other was at a VS AC, where I felt I hadn't spoken enough during the group exercise - this was to the point where people in my group were actively prompting me and asking if I wanted to add anything. However, on both occasions, I still ended up receiving an offer.

That obviously doesn't mean every mistake is irrelevant, but I think it is a good reminder that we tend to ruminate on the moments that felt uncomfortable or imperfect and give much less weight to the things that actually went well. Firms are usually assessing across a range of things, rather than looking for flawless performance. If the rest of your performance was strong, a silly mistake is unlikely to be fatal.

If it helps, you could reflect on:

• Was it a factual mistake, or a judgement call?
• Did it affect your whole answer, or one small part?
• Did you still explain your reasoning clearly?

Candidates are often much more aware of their own mistakes than interviewers are, and something that feels huge to you may have come across as a very normal slip in an otherwise strong performance. I really would try not to score yourself retrospectively, as you don't necessarily know what they are looking for and what they value. I would give yourself credit for getting through the exercise and try not to let one moment define how you feel about the whole application.

Fingers crossed for the outcome!

Hi Abbie, thank you! is it okay if I privately message you about this?

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi Abbie, thank you! is it okay if I privately message you about this?

No problem - of course, will reply to you now