@George Maxwell So I have this question specifically for HSF also and I am just wondering whether you believe my reasons below are ok? So I essentially know that HSF are a full-service firm with strengths across numerous practice areas (corporate and disputes) but my specific reasons for my interest revolve around their strength in IP, allowing you to specialise in particular sectors in TC (specifically interested here in corporate strengths at firm and how I can specifically do life sciences/tech work here as interested in these industries), and their focus on innovation.
So in line with these reasons, I have also applied to firms like TW, Bird & Bird (which are actually quite different to HSF as not as well-rounded as they specialise more in these areas I am interested in). With this in mind, when speaking about other firms I have applied to and why and my motivation for HSF – would you say this reasoning isn’t strong enough/doesn’t apply to HSF enough or is fine because of their full-service nature and its natural to take a specific interest in certain things?
I hope what I am asking makes sense!
Hi
@gracelaw_,
This is a good question.
So as I said in
my previous post, I think that highlighting certain characteristics of some firms, and contrasting ones in others is fine. It just depends on how well you can justify your attraction to the characteristics in question.
In this case, you could highlight that training at HSF would allow you to have exposure to first-class IP work
whilst also allowing you to experience other (equally strong) practice areas (i.e., it would give you a very rounded training contract). It can also provide world-class structured training etc. Hogan Lovells would do this too as they are also highly ranked for IP (and are very similar to HSF in many ways).
It is normal to have a particular interest in something too and I think this displays a healthy interest in the career more generally. All I would say is make sure that you are able to justify your interest and be able to speak about it (even after being prodded/pushed or while being subject to significant pressure by your interviewer).
I would caution you that it is a good idea to demonstrate that you are committed to keeping an open mind about practice areas.
I was told numerous times about people who went to HSF intent on being a litigator, who then qualified into a non-contentious seat, such as corporate, for example. The firm like to know that you will be enthusiastic wherever you are put (as you are unlikely to get your first choice seat for each rotation of your TC). Supervising a trainee who clearly does not want to be in X seat is pretty miserable (and does not reflect well on you as a trainee either).
Incidentally, during my vacation scheme, the IP presentation was particularly interesting and was a real highlight.
Rachel Montagnon who led the talk was fantastic. The presentation was just very interactive and fun 🤓. I know others on the scheme felt the same way too!
I hope that helps.
Please do reach out if you have any further questions 🚀
).
