Hi
@tom-sawyer I do not think there is a right or wrong way to tackle this question vis a vis the number of questions you should mention. I can both see how mentioning 1 question and then providing an 130 word explanation of the background and context of the question, but also the way it ties to your motivations, could be compelling in its show of depth; and how mentioning 3 questions, each with a 30-40 word explanation, could be attractive in terms of showing a breath of interests and research.
In my opinion, the option you go for should just depend on the specific of your interests and the firm; if you have one central interest in the firm that comes before all others, and especially if a question related to it may take a longer while to spell out, it wold make a lot of sense to go for the first approach. If instead you have a variety of reasons for interest, and the questions related to such interests are also easier to explain, it would definitely be sensible to go for the second option.
What I think is central to get this question right is to come up with good questions and clear explanation as to why they matter to you. As such,
you should avoid doing the following:
- Asking questions which could also be researched online - a good question is one that you could only get a good answer from at the interview from someone with insider knowledge of the firm;
- Asking too broad or ambiguous questions: seek to be specific in the details of how you frame your question, showing that you know what kinds of aspects can truly differentiate the firm from its competitors;
- Asking questions solely meant to impress: while it is important to ask questions that reflect the depth of your research into the firm and of understanding of the legal market, you should also not ask questions only for asking's sake; instead, I think you should seek to connect each question with a plausibly-held motivation;