🚨 Reed Smith has just announced its Direct Training Contract route!
The deadline is 20th June.

👉 Read Becca's announcement post here
📝 Apply directly here

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amma Usman" data-source="post: 191793" data-attributes="member: 36740">Hello [USER=28506]@KBanana[/USER] ,My general approach to this question, “which other firms have you applied to“,  is to, as you suggested, focus on the work. However, it is not enough to list how each firm you have applied to excels in each of them. Indeed, many firms will excel in similar practices, particularly if they have strong established client bases across multiple markets and geographic areas. 200 words is also not a lot, so perhaps focus on 1-2 practices as this will enable you to go into the differences of each firm‘s work scope. I also think it’s worth noting here that sometimes, these differences may not be so clear - and that’s fine. For example, all those 3 firms may have strong finance practices. Firm A may have a strong market position of advising on buy-side PE deals; Firm B may excel in advising asset managers on high-end acquisitions; Firm C (which you are applying to, may excel in both, as well as..say… sustainable investing within M&A deals. There was something [USER=36777]@Andrei Radu[/USER] once said on this which really resonated with me. He said that when looking at a law firm’s competitors and trying to think of a reason which draws you to the firm you are applying to more, it is important to look at the reasons conjunctively and not disjunctively. It made me realise that the reasons for each firm on their own may apply generally across the broad spectrum of City law firms. However, when talked about together, for a firm which excels in all those areas, you can show strong demonstrated interest. For more context, I have quoted his post below:Andrei’s Post:“ As Amma pointed out, it is very rare to find out anything unique about a firm's practice at a broad level, so you need to find a more specific and niche subpart to tie your reasoning too. However, even that can be quite difficult to find. Intuitively, you have already attempted to do so, by going beyond ascertaining "practice area strength" and looking into three more specific parts of the practice: (a) client focus, (b) industry focus, and (c) market focus. You have done well to have identified where <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/latham-watkins.18" target="_blank">Latham</a> sits in the market in each, but you have found that none makes the firm truly unique, as there are rivals for each market segment even in these more niche categories. Nonetheless, the information you have gathered, taken as a whole, does make <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/latham-watkins.18" target="_blank">Latham</a> unique.While if you were to take any of (a) or (b) or (c) separately it would have not sufficed, if you explain that what motivates you to train at <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/latham-watkins.18" target="_blank">Latham</a> is that the lev fin team has (a) and (b) and (c), then it will - for none of the identified firms is great for both large-cap and mid-market deals and also has the same market focus as <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/latham-watkins.18" target="_blank">Latham</a>. Sure, you will need to use some extra word count to explain why you want all these three aspects in your ideal leveraged finance team (besides also explaining your general interest in the practice) but that should not be that difficult to achieve - you probably already have some motivation you can tie to each individual point.Finally, I wanted to mention that this applies at a broader level for writing a great 'Why the firm' answer. For instance, say you did not want to spend so much word count on just a leveraged finance motivation. Say you went ahead with a simple '<a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/latham-watkins.18" target="_blank">Latham</a> has exceptional expertise in high-end lev fin work' reason for why the firm. That would indeed not suffice for specificity, as this point would equally apply to firms like Kirkland, Paul, Weiss and Milbank. However, that does not mean this added no value. This reason excludes the vast majority of other firms. Now, if you can supplement this first motivation with another one or two that excludes the few firms reason 1 equally applies to, taken as a whole your 'Why the firm' reasoning will apply to no other as well as to <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/latham-watkins.18" target="_blank">Latham</a>. Examples of unique selling points of <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/latham-watkins.18" target="_blank">Latham</a> that differentiate it from rivals with very strong PE/lev fin practices include: strong contentious teams and a more full service London offering, an increasingly strong corporate M&A team, exceptional capital markets expertise, and arguably a more collaborative firm-wide culture. The point to remember is that you should try to make use of reasons conjunctively rather than disjunctively. Think of 'why firm' reasons as 'firm selection criteria': your only job is to make sure no other firm scores as well in all of those criteria, not that no other firm scores as well in any specific criterion. “</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread