TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[Sharkfin]

Congrats!! did you get the link to the assessment? I got the email from Grad Rec but didn’t receive the link from the provider

Just following up w this - turns out you just need to click the cvmail link in the email to access the test!

 

[SemperParatus]

Clyde & Co London Spring VS Online Assessment Invite

 

[llblawstudent]

Clyde and Co pfo post test

Sorry to hear that, when did you receive the test?

 

[Suii]

Sorry to hear that, when did you receive the test?

Bro I did it too early that I forgot I even did it.

 

[sumsum]

has anyone heard from Shakespeare Martineau

 

[NorthernerInLondon]

Clyde & Co London spring vac scheme Online Assessment Invite - anyone know if this is automatic or not?

 

[lawyersum]

no way the hill dickinson work experience section has a 50 word limit for each entry

 

[yk1906]

For Fieldfisher, do we need to include our GCSE and A-level modules, but not our undergraduate ones?

 

[ninarosee]

Travers Smith has included a ‘Legal High Potential Assessment’ as part of the DTC application. Does this also apply to the vac scheme application as well?

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi @Andrei Radu @Abbie Whitlock! Could I please have some advice about how to structure an written exercise e.g. an email, as I have seen a lot about using headings and bullet points but I'm not too sure on the overall structure? Also if anyone has any resources to practice them!

I also wanted to know how I should go about preparing my commercial awareness. For example, I know about the annual budget but I don't really know how this impacts law firms. Alongside this, are there any key standout challenges effecting law firms/clients currently?

Would really appreciate any guidance!

Thank you

Hi @panda1989 unfortunately I cannot give you very specific advice as to how to structure a written exercise, simply because the type of structure that works will depend a lot on the details of the exercise itself and the information you have to cover. Looking back at my written exercises, the only common features in terms of structure that I tended to observe were the following:

1. An introductory executive summary heading with a short paragraph following it, which explains the scope of my analysis, the core point of each section, and the main conclusion.
2. Having different big headings for different parts of the task (ie if an email I had to respond to asked me three different questions, I would separate my writing in three different sections)
3. Having headings/subheadings for core assessment criteria: as you are reading the relevant information, ask yourself what are the core cost/benefit factors you need to consider; sometimes, this provides you an easy way to present information and structure your analysis.
4. Sometimes, separating section by subheading such as "Brief Summary" and "Analysis" can make sense, such as to clearly convey both what is uncontroversial factual information and what is your own viewpoint.

As for impact of news stories, when reading about a story I think you should always be asking yourself "how could this impact businesses?" and then "how does this impact change what they want from their lawyers?". Some stories have very easy and direct answers to both: eg a lowering of interest rates reduces borrowing costs, which makes deal financing cheaper and reduces valuation gaps between buyers and sellers, thus boosting demand for transactional practice areas such as M&A, PE, and banking & finance. Other stories (arguably, such as the new Budget) will not have this kind of straightforward analysis easily available, and, as such, should you choose to discuss them, you will need to conduct more in-depth research.

 

[Bree]

Does Macfarlanes read your application before Stage 2 assessment?

 

[BillSikes]

Anyone heard back from RPC after online assessments?

What is the test for RPC?

 

[p2bv]

For Fieldfisher, do we need to include our GCSE and A-level modules, but not our undergraduate ones?

Yeah, there’s no breakdown needed for undergrad

 

[Lawyergyal123!]

is latham stage two automatic ?

 

[Scottishlion]

I got 3-3-3-4 for Norton, is that an ok score?

 

[Suii]

I got 3-3-3-4 for Norton, is that an ok score?

Reading that sounded like a football formation lol but congratulations.

 

[Andrei Radu]

I meant I want to highlight restructuring and insolvency in the second question as it resonates to my background from emerging market where the issues become hot right now. I cited an article from Financial Times to strengthen my point as well as link it back to the recent deal and my work exp.

However, I am aware the next question (Q3) asked about a focused transactional firm which could crossline or weaken what I wrote about restructuring in the previous question since it's known as contentious work. Is there a R&I practice that focus on transactional only?

Also, I know firms love the multidisciplinary topics or areas to discuss, but just to strengthen my third question I add Tax & Lev Finance as it's tend to be more non-contentious than R&I.

And of course, I dedicated PE in the last (Q4) because of what I've mentioned before.

I see - my answer is still mostly the same as the one before: I generally do not think there is any issue with expressing an interest in a multitude of practice areas that a firm is known for, even if they span across the transactional-contentious-advisory spectrum. More particular to the matter at hand, I do not see the restructuring & insolvency point to raise any issue at all, as it is not even formally classified as a contentious practice. Instead, it has elements of both, with restructuring work in particular being very transactional-heavy (as at its core it involves getting enough creditors to agree to CVAs to keep the company alive), while insolvency is more contentious. Particularly at Kirkland, who has a core focus on highly-profitable private capital led mandates in London, I would expect the restructuring part of its practice to be more important than the insolvency one, and, as such, I do not think the firm would assume you are a person who is more interested in disputes than transactions if you choose to discuss the this story.

Even if this were not the case, and the firm's restructuring work in London was heavy on the contentious side, as long as you are careful with how you draft your answers I really do not expect this to be a problem in your application. Essentially, you should indeed avoid discussing any reasons for your interest in restructuring & insolvency that could weaken the credibility of your "why transactional" reasons - eg. if you say you are interested in transactional work because it is fast-paced and more business-focused when compared to other more technical practices, you should avoid saying you are interested in restructuring because it involves working on a single complex matter for a longer time and that you would enjoy it because of the incredible complexity and technical detail of regulation in this area. Nonetheless, as you can see, these kinds of tensions in motivations are quite obvious when you spell them out, and I therefore think it is quite unlikely you will inadvertently write conflicting narratives in the two answers.