TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[Ali2020]

Has anyone heard back from Aspiring Solicitor's Sky internship?

Hey, I heard back yesterday to complete a MCQ test....not sure if this is automatic to everyone?

 

[Ali2020]

I got an email just now inviting me to MCQ'S.

me too! stressing how to complete this in the short timeframe!

 

[trainee4u]

me too! stressing how to complete this in the short timeframe!

4 minutes, twenty questions, 12 seconds each, I suggest making sure you have a good PC, internet connection, and a mouse (laptop trackpad/pointer slows you down).

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

Don't know how easy it is to find an answer to my question, but here it goes - are there any firms that often give their paralegals opportunities to convert to TC/recruit their trainees from mostly/some of their paralegal cohort? @Jessica Booker @Ram Sabaratnam @Andrei Radu

Hiya @marisachr

I think @Jessica Booker would likely have a better understanding of this, but wanted to get to you with some information.

From what I’ve seen, there definitely are firms that recruit most or all of their trainees from their paralegal cohort. I know of several strong litigation boutiques (e.g. Stewarts and Leigh Day) where the typical path to a training contract is through a paralegal role at the firm. I’m a bit less sure about how this plays out at transactionally focused firms, but during my assessment centres and vacation schemes, I’ve met various paralegals who were also currently working at those firms. That said, I think it's difficult to say with any certainty whether a specific firm recruits many trainees from its paralegal pool, since there's very little data on this.

One thing I would say is that paralegalling (even if it doesn’t lead to a TC at your current firm) can still be a great way into the profession. I’ve met a lot of paralegals who’ve gone on to secure training contracts elsewhere, often at firms with a similar profile or practice area focus. The experience you gain in these roles can be so helpful when you do apply for a TC later on.

 

[TCpleasex]

WBD Leeds AC!!!

Genuinely in shock, I have been applying for VS/TCs for 4 cycles now & always getting rejected post-app. This is my 2nd AC this cycle alongside 2 VI & 1 TI. For those struggling this cycle don’t give up, I have always lived by ‘what is for you will never go past you’ & this won’t go past you!!!

 

[lawstudent272003]

@Ram Sabaratnam @jessicabooker @Amma Usman @Andrei Radu Could you please provide some tips on completing a candidate profile ahead of a vacation scheme. What sort of things would you put in Work experience, Interests and activities section?

 

[Chris Brown]

The legal recruitment process is excruciatingly bad. I’ve also yet to secure an offer after 4 assessment centres with different firms the last 2 years.

There’s just too much bias involved in interviews that people are rejected because they weren’t ‘liked’. They shouldn’t allow partners or associates to conduct interviews anymore! It’s awful.

At the end of the day, partners have ownership in the firm and it is of material interest of them to engage in the recruiting process. Partners look for people they can see working alongside, and I've learned that their choice can be a lot more human-centred than grades / scores in an assesment. Being likeable / charismatic / enthusiastic will of course put you in much better stead. This is why it is important to find firms whose culture aligns with your character.

May be a controversial take, but fundamentally law firms are partnerships where people work very closely together, so imo it makes sense for lawyers to be involved in the recruitment process and pick whom they find likeable, because at the end of the day they will be working long hours together
Besides, if two people don’t click it’s usually mutual, so these personality-based rejections are probably just steering you towards an environment that is more suited to you! Best of luck for your remaining apps x

I definitely agree that there is still a lot of bias and prejudice in city law. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea for recruitment processes to not involve partners and/or associates. I feel like since partners have an ownership stake in their firm(s), they will want to ensure the right candidates are selected. For that reason, they will want to be part of the interview and selection process of graduate recruitment. Ultimately, city law and the legal profession is driven on collaboration and teamwork, so I think being likeable matters. 🙂

I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, partners want to ensure future trainees (who will go on to become future partners), share the same values and beliefs as them (i.e., being a good cultural fit for the firm). Secondly, from a business point of view, they want the best talent. This ensures the firm continues to grow in scale, revenue and subsequently, higher PPEP. Finally, it allows partners to assess candidates’ motivations, competency and commercial awareness, all very important things trainees need. 😅

I think the important thing is that interviews should be conducted on a CV-blind basis. That way, things like unconscious bias, prejudice and potential discrimination can be avoided as much as possible. Things like rare recruitment help with this, but more needs to be done to ensure the best candidates are chosen, regardless of their ethnic, religious, educational or socioeconomic background. Unfortunately, it isn’t always the case at present. It does come down to luck and subjective judgment. 🥲

Despite this, please do not lose faith in yourself in this process. I am positive that there is a firm out there that will recognise your value and the things you have to offer! Best of luck with the rest of this application cycle! I am sure you will get that well deserved TC soon! 🙂​

 

[zonnonomo]

I definitely agree that there is still a lot of bias and prejudice in city law. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea for recruitment processes to not involve partners and/or associates. I feel like since partners have an ownership stake in their firm(s), they will want to ensure the right candidates are selected. For that reason, they will want to be part of the interview and selection process of graduate recruitment. Ultimately, city law and the legal profession is driven on collaboration and teamwork, so i think being likeable matters. 🙂

I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, partners want to ensure future trainees (who will go on to become future partners), share the same values and beliefs as them (i.e., being a good cultural fit for the firm). Secondly, from a business point of view, they want the best talent. This ensures the firm continues to grow in scale, revenue and subsequently, higher PPEP. Finally, it allows partners to assess candidates’ motivations, competency and commercial awareness, all very important things trainees need. 😅

I think the important thing is that interviews should be conducted on a CV-blind basis. That way, things like unconscious bias, prejudice and potential discrimination can be avoided as much as possible. Things like rare recruitment help with this, but more needs to be done to ensure the best candidates are chosen, regardless of their ethnic, religious, educational or socioeconomic background. Unfortunately, it isn’t always the case at present. It does come down to luck and subjective judgment. 🥲​

why don't them partners fw me i swear im always about increasing that shareholder value🤧📈💸

 

[A worried graduate]

Anyone else heard nothing from HD Liverpool?

 

[Chris Brown]

why don't them partners fw me i swear im always about increasing that shareholder value🤧📈💸

Take both of these bad boys in to your next partner interview and they will fw you for sure:

 

[ecohorts]

SPB rejection post AC. This was my last law firm application of this cycle so this one really hurt. Feeling very depleted right now. I got through to 3 ACs but failed them all. It’s only my first application cycle but the fact I failed every AC is really upsetting.

 

[James Wakefield]

Anyone heard back about the Macfarlanes dinner?

 

[InterestInPublicLaw]

Ditto except I applied to Bristol

Lol same I applied to Bristol. Got highest for both intellects, and a score of 6,7,7,7! This process is so non-transparent

 

[tea]

SPB rejection post AC. This was my last law firm application of this cycle so this one really hurt. Feeling very depleted right now. I got through to 3 ACs but failed them all. It’s only my first application cycle but the fact I failed every AC is really upsetting.

Your applications, tests and everything before the ACs were obviously great so don’t doubt yourself there – it’s such a struggle to get even 1 AC so 3 is amazing! I did 2 ACs this cycle and 3 final partner interviews – failed one AC and waitlisted for the other, but passed all the interviews somehow. It’s obviously really disheartening, but I guess the silver lining is that you can figure out what you need to work on from feedback. Though, from my own personal experience the feedback wasn’t helpful at all, and it was “you were great, but everyone else was better – though your interviews went really really well”. I ended up focusing on firms with final partner interviews rather than ACs because I just couldn't be bothered with them.

Somewhat lazy way out lol, but maybe just start applying to things with a recruitment process geared towards your strengths. If I’d applied solely to firms with an SJT, my application cycle would’ve ended as soon as it started – I’ve failed every single one I’ve done. It wasn’t even something I’d considered looking into, and I ended up being quite lucky that the majority of the firms I’d applied to didn’t have an SJT. I know everyone says to work on the things you can’t do – obviously great advice! – but alternatively applications to firms with a final partner interview (if that’s something you think you would be better at) or with an AC geared towards interviews. If that’s where you struggle consider firms with an interview earlier on in the process and less focus on interviewing later on!

good luck with all your future applications even if this doesn't help x

 

[Logan1101]

I definitely agree that there is still a lot of bias and prejudice in city law. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea for recruitment processes to not involve partners and/or associates. I feel like since partners have an ownership stake in their firm(s), they will want to ensure the right candidates are selected. For that reason, they will want to be part of the interview and selection process of graduate recruitment. Ultimately, city law and the legal profession is driven on collaboration and teamwork, so I think being likeable matters. 🙂

I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, partners want to ensure future trainees (who will go on to become future partners), share the same values and beliefs as them (i.e., being a good cultural fit for the firm). Secondly, from a business point of view, they want the best talent. This ensures the firm continues to grow in scale, revenue and subsequently, higher PPEP. Finally, it allows partners to assess candidates’ motivations, competency and commercial awareness, all very important things trainees need. 😅

I think the important thing is that interviews should be conducted on a CV-blind basis. That way, things like unconscious bias, prejudice and potential discrimination can be avoided as much as possible. Things like rare recruitment help with this, but more needs to be done to ensure the best candidates are chosen, regardless of their ethnic, religious, educational or socioeconomic background. Unfortunately, it isn’t always the case at present. It does come down to luck and subjective judgment. 🥲

Despite this, please do not lose faith in yourself in this process. I am positive that there is a firm out there that will recognise your value and the things you have to offer! Best of luck with the rest of this application cycle! I am sure you will get that well deserved TC soon! 🙂​

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

 

[Bread]

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

It is lottery-based, but a big part of law is dealing with a wide range of personalities, and since it is a highly client-facing profession it is important to be able to make yourself appealing to different kinds of people.
Fundamentally it doesn’t need to be measured objectively, you just have to try to make your best impression on the interviewer that you were assigned, because that too is a skill

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi everyone, I have 2 x 400 application questions which I would like some guidance on. I am unsure of how to fill the word count and the things I should cover.

In light of our service lines, if you could introduce one client to us, who would it be and why? (max 400 words)

I have identified a specific client and how it relates to the firm through similar cases in the past but am unsure on what else to talk about.

AI is rapidly changing how law firms operate and how solicitors interact with clients. How can we embrace AI without sacrificing our value of Human First? (max 400 words)

@Andrei Radu your insight would be much appreciated as I have found your question breakdowns in the past super useful! Also, a side question Andrei do you think you will still be around on TCLA next cycle?

Hi @emma.d so for the first question I think your approach is the right one, in that you need to identify a potential client that has a need for legal services in one of the firm's major practice areas. Importantly, you should make sure that the firm has not represented the client in the past, as the question says you would be introducing them. Ideally, you want to get very specific in your analysis, going beyond something like "this client has a need for litigation/corporate m&a/finance advice and the firm has these departments" - as (i) basically every large company/financial institution has a general need for these services; and (ii) basically every large commercial law firm has sizeable teams in those areas. Thus, you should try to find a more specific "fit": if the firm specializes in a particular type of deal/case, or on deals/cases in a particular industry or in particular jurisdictions, you should look for a potential client who requires that specific type of expertise more than any other. Besides this, to obtain a more detailed analysis, consider integrating some of the following factors:

1. How much business could this client bring in: the number of cases/deals/matters this client would need advice for, and the size of the aforementioned mandates, are some of the most important considerations. The bigger the demand for legal services your client will have, the more revenues will it bring to the firm. For instance, all other things being equal, a PE-focused firm would prefer to be introduced to Blackstone rather than EQT or CVC, as over the long term there is a potential to get a lot more work from the former.
2. Cross selling opportunities: if you can find a client that has a need not just for one of the firm's practice areas, but several, this will provide an opportunity for cross-selling, which can once again drive up revenues.
3. Legal fees: different clients are willing to pay high legal fees to different extents, and you ideally want to introduce the clients that are least resistant towards that. Those would be your blue chip companies and large financial institutions, particularly US based ones.
4. Market share: if you can increase market share in one of the areas that are a strategic priority for the firm, particularly by poaching clients from a major competitor, that will always be a benefit.
5. Relationship to other firms: Finally, consider how difficult it may be for the firm to actually poach that client. If the potential client has deep institutional ties with another firm, like Apollo with Paul, Weiss or Comcast with Davis Polk, this will not be easy.

For the second question, I think the way you go about answering it will depend on the specific way the firm describes its 'Human First' value - so I would firstly advise you to read what the firm has published on that. It will be good to integrate specific phrases and references, as it will show depth of research. Since this is also a question which has no obviously right or wrong answer, the nuances of how you lay out your substantive analysis will likely also depend on the firm's particular conception of this value.

Secondly, it is quite likely that you will need to address at least the following two points (i) what are the reasons for the firm to integrate AI systems, and what are the main areas of its operations where this might be done; and (ii) what are plausible concerns around the Human First value (particularly in relations to clients) and what are plausible ways to address those. For (i), you will likely be able to focus on efficiency gains and costs savings for clients; while for (ii) on measures to ensure transparency around use of AI, that the work involving AI remains error free, and that the main points of client interaction will remain humans.

For the final question, I am happy to say I will likely stay at TCLA for at least the most part of the next cycle

 

[floral.tcla]

Can we just (virtually) frolick in the sunshine and stop arguing

 

[aphelion]

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

Unfortunately there is always a possibility that discriminatory attitudes will influence hiring at any stage of the process.

For example, the name on your application will give away whether you are male or female and may also indicate your race. Even if your name is hidden when your application is reviewed, the type of work experience or extracurriculars you have can, for example, indicate your class background. And if we zoom out even further, structural disadvantage makes it harder for people from certain groups to even be in a position to make a competitive application to begin with.

Of course, at an interview, it's easier to spot people's race, sex, disability etc. and take a biased view, but this would be a problem even firms they didn't allow partners or associates to interview you, as you suggested, because any interviewer will have some level of bias. I'm sure every firm evaluates its processes to ensure they are as objective as possible, for example through competency or commercial interviews where candidates are given numerical scores based on the content of their responses.

At the end of the day, though, law is fundamentally a people business, and firms want to hire people who work well with others and can get on with clients. Sometimes someone gets a bad interviewer who makes it impossible to build a rapport with them, and that's the interviewer's fault. But if someone is consistently failing to build a rapport with interviewers, this suggests a need to brush up on people skills. Given that most people can develop people skills with practice, and that these skills are essential to the career, I would argue it's not discrimination to reject someone who lacks such skills.

 

[Logan1101]

Unfortunately there is always a possibility that discriminatory attitudes will influence hiring at any stage of the process.

For example, the name on your application will give away whether you are male or female and may also indicate your race. Even if your name is hidden when your application is reviewed, the type of work experience or extracurriculars you have can, for example, indicate your class background. And if we zoom out even further, structural disadvantage makes it harder for people from certain groups to even be in a position to make a competitive application to begin with.

Of course, at an interview, it's easier to spot people's race, sex, disability etc. and take a biased view, but this would be a problem even firms they didn't allow partners or associates to interview you, as you suggested, because any interviewer will have some level of bias. I'm sure every firm evaluates its processes to ensure they are as objective as possible, for example through competency or commercial interviews where candidates are given numerical scores based on the content of their responses.

At the end of the day, though, law is fundamentally a people business, and firms want to hire people who work well with others and can get on with clients. Sometimes someone gets a bad interviewer who makes it impossible to build a rapport with them, and that's the interviewer's fault. But if someone is consistently failing to build a rapport with interviewers, this suggests a need to brush up on people skills. Given that most people can develop people skills with practice, and that these skills are essential to the career, I would argue it's not discrimination to reject someone who lacks such skills.

Define ‘people skills’ then?