This sounds like a Bradstone Allington style scam
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
I think BA is slightly different; they charge people to "train". This looks like exploiting unpaid labour.
Has anyone heard anything from Sky since submitting their CVs last week? 🥲
Does anyone have any insights into GT's final stage assessment centre? thanks very much!
Does anyone know any firms actively recruiting for paralegal roles?
I think I saw BCLP are recruiting for paralegals in the Manchester office (real estate & disputes) and Clyde & Co are recruiting for their regional offices (casualty & insurance). 🙂
Clyde & Co have an actual training programme for it called the paralegal academy. You can secure a TC internally after 12 months with them via the paralegal academy scheme. 😅
Clyde & Co have an actual training programme for it called the paralegal academy. You can secure a TC internally after 12 months with them via the paralegal academy scheme. 😅
Does anyone have experience of doing the SQE a couple of years after the PGDL? Just wondering how long you gave it to catch-up on materials beforehand, how long you would recommend going back through your notes before starting the SQE prep course. Thanks!
Ah yes, Grant Thornton’s final stage assessment centre.
First off, bring your own stapler. At GT, stationery dominance is everything.
Next, when they ask you to do a group exercise, insist on leading a guided meditation instead. Say it’s a “strategic mindfulness audit.” Don’t let anyone speak until they’ve understood you.
In the interview, only answer questions using the format of Love Island confessionals. E.g., “So I walked into the boardroom, yeah, and I was like, this valuation is giving cringe vibes.”
Also, they love initiative – so bring your own snacks and start selling them to other candidates at a 40% markup.
If you don’t receive an offer, it’s only because they weren’t ready for your visionary leadership.
Best of luck!
@Jessica Booker would working in a high street firm as a paralegal until applications open up again be a mad move in terms of motivations. I have been applying for those instead of commercial law firms as I feel like it would offer a better balance to manage with application season? thank you
does anyone have insights into the faegre drinker VI interview? thanks very much!
No, it can be outstanding, practical experience. That's how I started my legal career. I was able to work closely with a partner on deals and could sell 'why law/why a particular' much better
While I probably wouldn't bring it up in interviews unsolicited, the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland is important for employment law and also for businesses providing services such as toilets, changing rooms, etc.
Here is the judgment
which provides that references to sex in the Equality Act refer to biological sex.
Gender recognition certificates were introduced in 2004 following the ECtHR decision in Goodwin v UK. Goodwin complained of ECHR article 8 (private life) and 12 (right to marry) violations. At the time there were neither same-sex marriages nor civil partnerships in the UK. In addition, there was no right to change birth certificates and other official documentation to reflect a gender change
A gender recognition certificate has the effect of allowing one to change the sex on one's birth, death and marriage certificate. The GRA 2004 says that "for all purposes", a person's gender becomes the acquired gender. FWS were litigating whether this meant that a person's acquired gender entitled them to be treated as of the acquired sex. The Supreme Court determines that it does not, and that the Equality Act's references to sex discrimination apply on the basis of biological sex only. Within this context, it's important to note that a person's perceived sex, race or other protected characteristic still engages discrimination law, so if someone discriminates against a biologically male transwoman whom they perceive to be female, on the basis of perceived female sex, that is discrimination just as much as if that person were in fact biologically female.
Schedule 3 of the Equality Act provides that sex discrimination might be permitted to provide separate or single-sex services if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as well as for privacy, etc. Therefore, service providers and employers can now exclude people who are, or whom they perceive to be, biologically female from male toilets and similar services. In addition, Workplace Regulations provide that employers must provide single-sex or individual private facilities, and therefore where employers do not separate these on the basis of biological sex, they are at risk of discrimination and/or harassment challenge
This is discussed here
12kbwemploymentlaw.wordpress.com
A case discussed there is Earl Shilton v Miller, where Ms Miller was told to use male toilets which contained a urinal, which was less favourable treatment and hence sex discrimination.
There is thus a risk for service providers who choose not to pursue the allowed direct sex discrimination of separating services by sex but instead making them open to people based on gender identity that they will be sued by users for indirect sex discrimination. For example, a woman who uses a "single gender" toilet might claim that she feels humiliated by the presence of a biological male, and sue for compensation; the Vento bands start at £1200. Indirect discrimination (EA s 19) is allowed when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but we don't know yet know whether providing mixed-sex toilets on the basis of gender identity would be that.
There is another good article here https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex by Michael Foran, who was quoted in the SC judgment.
Here is the judgment
which provides that references to sex in the Equality Act refer to biological sex.
Gender recognition certificates were introduced in 2004 following the ECtHR decision in Goodwin v UK. Goodwin complained of ECHR article 8 (private life) and 12 (right to marry) violations. At the time there were neither same-sex marriages nor civil partnerships in the UK. In addition, there was no right to change birth certificates and other official documentation to reflect a gender change
A gender recognition certificate has the effect of allowing one to change the sex on one's birth, death and marriage certificate. The GRA 2004 says that "for all purposes", a person's gender becomes the acquired gender. FWS were litigating whether this meant that a person's acquired gender entitled them to be treated as of the acquired sex. The Supreme Court determines that it does not, and that the Equality Act's references to sex discrimination apply on the basis of biological sex only. Within this context, it's important to note that a person's perceived sex, race or other protected characteristic still engages discrimination law, so if someone discriminates against a biologically male transwoman whom they perceive to be female, on the basis of perceived female sex, that is discrimination just as much as if that person were in fact biologically female.
Schedule 3 of the Equality Act provides that sex discrimination might be permitted to provide separate or single-sex services if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as well as for privacy, etc. Therefore, service providers and employers can now exclude people who are, or whom they perceive to be, biologically female from male toilets and similar services. In addition, Workplace Regulations provide that employers must provide single-sex or individual private facilities, and therefore where employers do not separate these on the basis of biological sex, they are at risk of discrimination and/or harassment challenge
This is discussed here
For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers: four lessons for employers
Author: David Green, Head of 12KBW Employment Team Oh good. Another article about For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. One week on from the Supreme Court delivering its judgment, I am unconvinc…
12kbwemploymentlaw.wordpress.com
A case discussed there is Earl Shilton v Miller, where Ms Miller was told to use male toilets which contained a urinal, which was less favourable treatment and hence sex discrimination.
There is thus a risk for service providers who choose not to pursue the allowed direct sex discrimination of separating services by sex but instead making them open to people based on gender identity that they will be sued by users for indirect sex discrimination. For example, a woman who uses a "single gender" toilet might claim that she feels humiliated by the presence of a biological male, and sue for compensation; the Vento bands start at £1200. Indirect discrimination (EA s 19) is allowed when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but we don't know yet know whether providing mixed-sex toilets on the basis of gender identity would be that.
There is another good article here https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex by Michael Foran, who was quoted in the SC judgment.
Hey! Winston & Strawn Interview later this week. I was wondering who the firms main competitors are generally and especially with regards to International Arbitration and M&A work for PE funds. I was also wondering if anyone could provide more insight into the firm's position in the market. Thanks a ton for the help!
Last edited:
Hey @Andrei Radu! What do you think are the differences in structure (if any) when answering why commercial law in a cover letter vs in an application form question with a 250/300 word limit? Would love to know your thoughts! Thanks 
Hi everyone,
I’m in the very fortunate position of having been offered training contracts at Freshfields, Weil, Slaughters and White & Case. I've narrowed it down to Freshfields and White & Case, but I’m having a really hard time deciding between the two.
I know both firms are outstanding, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time at each, I genuinely feel I’d fit in well at either. I have an interest in arbitration and litigation, though I appreciate that these interests may evolve over time.
In the longer term, I’d love to become a KC and solicitor advocate, with the potential-ambitious as it may be-of possibly joining the judiciary one day. I know it’s not the traditional route but I also know of a few solicitors who’ve taken this path.
With that in mind, I’d really appreciate any insights or advice anyone might have about which offer to accept.
Thanks all!
I’m in the very fortunate position of having been offered training contracts at Freshfields, Weil, Slaughters and White & Case. I've narrowed it down to Freshfields and White & Case, but I’m having a really hard time deciding between the two.
I know both firms are outstanding, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time at each, I genuinely feel I’d fit in well at either. I have an interest in arbitration and litigation, though I appreciate that these interests may evolve over time.
In the longer term, I’d love to become a KC and solicitor advocate, with the potential-ambitious as it may be-of possibly joining the judiciary one day. I know it’s not the traditional route but I also know of a few solicitors who’ve taken this path.
With that in mind, I’d really appreciate any insights or advice anyone might have about which offer to accept.
Thanks all!
Firstly, huge congrats on securing TC offers from all these firms. That is some GOATed stuff right there my friend! 🐐
In terms of your question, I think Freshfields is the strongest out of these firms for dispute resolution (litigation and arbitration). I think Freshfields is also really strong at M&A, Private Equity, Restructuring, Competition Law and Life Sciences (Band 1 on Chambers & Partners). 🙂
I imagine since Freshfields has a 8-seat TC, you can explore more practice areas. I guess it depends on how varied your interests are. I vaguely remember there is a KC lawyer at Freshfields (Will Thomas KC) who specialises in arbitration and public international law. 😅
In terms of your question, I think Freshfields is the strongest out of these firms for dispute resolution (litigation and arbitration). I think Freshfields is also really strong at M&A, Private Equity, Restructuring, Competition Law and Life Sciences (Band 1 on Chambers & Partners). 🙂
I imagine since Freshfields has a 8-seat TC, you can explore more practice areas. I guess it depends on how varied your interests are. I vaguely remember there is a KC lawyer at Freshfields (Will Thomas KC) who specialises in arbitration and public international law. 😅
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
