TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[cookedlawstudent]

I'm using graduate first and the tests are definitely harder. Try assessment day, their tests are similar to the real thing.

I would but the price point is insane 😭 47 only ONE WEEK OF ACCESS to questions???? I hope there are promo codes out there

 

[Amgrad]

I would but the price point is insane 😭 47 only ONE WEEK OF ACCESS to questions???? I hope there are promo codes out there

Try Assessly. It's mimic WG at most law firms which made me never failed. The price is also affordable

 

[Jaysen]

Hi everyone!

I'm very happy to say that Withers is live right now to answer any questions you have. You can join them in their thread here.

Katherine has substantial experience in the early talent space to provide you with guidance in your applications.

This is also a particularly good opportunity for those of you who want to know more about private client work.

 

[kelsworking]

Find SJT quite tricky - did FF stage 1 and got rejected.
Usually I am ok (average-ish) with wg and it seems to be the SJT that is problematic.
I understand from the sense that you have to be honest with yourself but it does seem a bit frustrating when you don't seem to be the right 'personality'.
Any insights or tips with these situations? Thanks

 

[Suii]

Freshfields pfo stage 1 worst start to the week when I just got back my motivation yesterday.

 

[CharlesT47]

Finally, you could also consider how the higher interest rate environment of the last few years has shifted the bargaining position in favour of lenders - after the rise of PE in the 2010s has led to a status quo of very sponsor-friendly terms. Arguably, this means that lawyers acting for investment banks should have more of an opportunity to value-add by pushing for better deal terms, which could be an attractive aspect for up-and-coming lawyers.

Hi @Andrei Radu , thanks for your response. I've been thinking about what you said here. I just have two questions.
First, does the private credit boom not diminish the bargaining position of lenders somewhat? In the sense that if sponsors are unhappy with the terms of the bank loan, they could equally approach private credit funds who can often offer substantial funding as well. This is despite the fact that the interest rates are higher.

Second, I've been trying to find more information on 'sponsor-designated' law firms. I can't seem to find many updated articles (Most are from a few years ago) However, my understanding is that the PE sponsor is the one who decides who represents the bank. This has been criticised for the inherent conflict of interest, as PE sponsors will pick firms that are friendly to their terms. Does this practice still occur to this day? If so, does this not show that lender-sided firms don't actually have that much bargaining power? If they were to push back hard, the PE sponsor would choose a different firm next time around.

This comes with the caveat that Davis Polk does not engage in any of this kind of work. They only do big-ticket M&A and it would be detrimental to their brand if they were to cave to pressure immediately. Which firms tend to be these sponsor-designated law firms?

Edit: Actually, I've just looked at their legal 500 page and the description of partner Luke McDougall is that he is often the designated lender counsel. I am very confused then. Is my analysis about the inherent conflict of interest then incorrect? Or am I missing something here.
If anyone could explain I would appreciate this.

 

[LawAspirer]

"Please tell us something that not many people know about you.
Could someone provide an insight into how one should answer this question?

 

[Tyler2203]

Is there something I’m missing with these ‘amberjack’ tests? Just got 4,6,6,6, but the highest for verbal reasoning and maths. It just seems like completely arbitrary what they’re looking for, and I’m completely losing motivation.

 

[roo4]

if anyone gets/has gotten the full schedule for the Cooley open day on Thursday could you please let me know - I'm unnecessarily stressed that my confirmation email never went through lol

 

[yk1906]

What was that Arctic Shore test... Have never done anything more pointless before

P.S. it's for Gowling

 

[PoliLegal]

Guys can anyone confirm if we need to put every grade individually in the Gowling WLG application? It’s not clear to me.

I'm in their webinar now. You don't need to provide grade breakdowns.

 

[TCLA0322]

Hi, I have a question. How should I answer Skadden’s prompt: “If you could choose a career other than law, what would you choose?” Do I need to pick something that links back to “why law” or “why the firm,” or can it just be any example?

Last year I wrote that I wanted to be a stand-up comedian because that was my genuine answer, but I didn’t even pass to the WE stage. I’m guessing GR rejected it straight away.😅

 

[ninarosee]

Has anyone heard back from dla since receiving the email confirming you passed the WG (especially if your score was very high)?

 

[yk1906]

Hi, I have a question. How should I answer Skadden’s prompt: “If you could choose a career other than law, what would you choose?” Do I need to pick something that links back to “why law” or “why the firm,” or can it just be any example?

Last year I wrote that I wanted to be a stand-up comedian because that was my genuine answer, but I didn’t even pass to the WE stage. I’m guessing GR rejected it straight away.😅

At first glance, I would pick something with core skills required for lawyers (and also the ones that Skadden looks for)!

 

[sadboi]

Has anyone heard back from dla since receiving the email confirming you passed the WG (especially if your score was very high)?

Yup! They've started to conduct phone interviews. The next stage will be the AC.

 

[safari3]

Yup! They've started to conduct phone interviews. The next stage will be the AC.

Hi, when did you receive an email confirming you passed WG? Thanks!

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi @Andrei Radu , thanks for your response. I've been thinking about what you said here. I just have two questions.
First, does the private credit boom not diminish the bargaining position of lenders somewhat? In the sense that if sponsors are unhappy with the terms of the bank loan, they could equally approach private credit funds who can often offer substantial funding as well. This is despite the fact that the interest rates are higher.

Second, I've been trying to find more information on 'sponsor-designated' law firms. I can't seem to find many updated articles (Most are from a few years ago) However, my understanding is that the PE sponsor is the one who decides who represents the bank. This has been criticised for the inherent conflict of interest, as PE sponsors will pick firms that are friendly to their terms. Does this practice still occur to this day? If so, does this not show that lender-sided firms don't actually have that much bargaining power? If they were to push back hard, the PE sponsor would choose a different firm next time around.

This comes with the caveat that Davis Polk does not engage in any of this kind of work. They only do big-ticket M&A and it would be detrimental to their brand if they were to cave to pressure immediately. Which firms tend to be these sponsor-designated law firms?

Edit: Actually, I've just looked at their legal 500 page and the description of partner Luke McDougall is that he is often the designated lender counsel. I am very confused then. Is my analysis about the inherent conflict of interest then incorrect? Or am I missing something here.
If anyone could explain I would appreciate this.

Hi @CharlesT47 for the first question, I would agree with you that the rise private credit has a somewhat negative impact on the banks' leverage; but I would argue it is not substantial enough to outweigh the aforementioned factors leading to an increase in bargaining power. While private credit has seen immense recent growth, the value of the market stands around an estimated $2-3 trillion; while the public credit market stands around $140 trillion - which is to say, we are quite a while away from private credit replacing the central role of public debt. Moreover, private credit also borrows a significant sums from banks to then be able to service PE clients, which means part of private credit PE financing can be ultimately traced back to public debt again.

As for your second question, influencing the choice of/designating the lender's counsel is indeed a practice that had become quite prevalent as PE was booming. I am not sure to what extent this practice is as common nowadays, but my assumption would again be that with an overall more depressed PE dealmaking & fundraising market, higher interest rates, and more public scrutiny of this potential conflict of interest, investment banks will be pushing back more on this. This Oxford article claims a recent study shows loan investors are increasingly suspicious of loan agreements where the lender's counsel was designated by the sponsor (as this is correlated with lower protection in the form of restrictive covenants and higher rates of defaults) and thus only want to purchase this debt at a discount. This in turn makes it more difficult for banks to take the debt off their balance sheets and thus decreases the profitability of wining these mandates; which should result in more pushback.

As for Davis Polk's practice, it seems to me the firm has traditionally been more traditional corporate/banking focused and has not made a jump to a core focus on private capital as quickly as the likes of Kirkland, Latham, Simpson Thacher, or Weil (who, I would expect, would be among the sponsor-friendly firms PE would push banks to select as counsel). That said, in the US they have become more established in high-end PE buyouts work, being ranked among the top 10 firms in the country by Chambers. In London, we have also seen some growth, with the firm recently hiring Gordon Milne, a leading PE partner from A&O Shearman. As such, it is difficult to say whether the firm would be placed in this "sponsor-friendly" category or not - this is probably only something an experienced practitioner could have an informed view on.

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

"Please tell us something that not many people know about you.
Could someone provide an insight into how one should answer this question?

Hey!

I would answer that question by sharing something small but meaningful that people wouldn't immediately know about you. It doesn't have to be deeply personal - just a detail that gives others a better sense of your personality or interests. A lot of people will pick something such as a surprising hobby, an unusual habit, or a unique skill.

For example, you could mention things such as:

1. A hobby that you enjoy that rarely comes up in conversation (e.g. "I love learning obscure board games")
2. A unique talent you have (such as being able to juggle or solve a Rubik's cube in under a minute)
3. Something about your background that people might not guess (e.g. that you speak a bit of an unusual language or once competed in a random contest)
4. A niche interest that you are passionate about (such as learning about myths from different cultures)

The idea is simply to share a small detail that feels true to you and adds a bit of personality - nothing too revealing, but just something that helps people get to know you a bit better! For example, in similar questions in the past, I discussed my interest in transport systems across the UK or my 5-year Duolingo streak - both examples give me a chance to showcase things I am passionate about!

it doesn't have to be something that is directly applicable to law or the business world, but you should use the question as an opportunity to show your passion and dedication to something that you are genuinely interested in (and link transferable skills where you can).

I'd try not to overthink it too much - just try to pick an interest or trait that feels authentic and genuine

 

[anon78365222111]

Has anyone been sent Bakers online test. They mentioned they’d send it in November

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi, I have a question. How should I answer Skadden’s prompt: “If you could choose a career other than law, what would you choose?” Do I need to pick something that links back to “why law” or “why the firm,” or can it just be any example?

Last year I wrote that I wanted to be a stand-up comedian because that was my genuine answer, but I didn’t even pass to the WE stage. I’m guessing GR rejected it straight away.😅

Hello!

You don't have to force it back to "why law" or "why Skadden", but it does help if your answer shows a bit of self-awareness and aligns with qualities that are useful in a legal career. The prompt is really about giving them insight into your personality, motivations, and the type of work that you naturally gravitate towards.

Your stand-up comedian answer might not have necessarily been "wrong", but it could have been more around how it was framed - you should discuss it in a way that connects to traits relevant to the role (e.g. communication, resilience, thinking on your feet). A good approach is:

1. Pick something you genuinely find interesting
2. Briefly explain why it appeals to you
3. Highlight how the values or skills behind that choice also matter to you in your legal career

For example, a lot of people might mention things such as teaching, journalism, architecture, or consulting - not necessarily because they plan to do them, but because those paths reflect traits such as curiosity, analysis, creativity, or working with people.

So your alternative career can absolutely be something fun or unconventional, particularly if it is your genuine answer - just make sure your explanation tells the graduate recruitment team something meaningful about your strengths and how you think.

I hope that helps!