TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[BT0901]

Yeah they opened today. Surprisingly, no long answer questions.

Can you clarify what you mean by no long answer questions? I didn't have to answer any questions, not even a personal statement.

 

[Andrei Radu]

@Abbie Whitlock @Andrei Radu @ZNadeem

I am currently in my final year and achieved an overall 2:1 in my first year. While two of my first-year modules were high 2:2s, my other three were strong 2:1s, and during my second year, I have consistently achieved high 2:1 and First-Class grades.

I wanted to ask whether law firms place significant weight on individual first-year module results or whether they assess academic performance based on overall grade progression and most recent results, especially given the fact that it was only the first year, which doesn't even count. If so, then so that I know, apart from Slaughers and Cleary, what firms have a strict informal general policy?

Thank you

Hi @noahsmiit01 the majority of firms will only really care about your overall degree result. If that is at least a 2.1, or a strong 2.1 for the more competitive firms, it should not be a significant barrier. Besides the overall result, the firms will place some weigh on both progression and individual module results. Progression matters to recruiters because it can indicate qualities and skills the firm is looking for - e.g. learning from mistakes, resilience, striving to improve etc. Individual module results can matter because they may indicate where your strengths and interests lie - i.e. if you score poorly in all the more commercial-focused modules (say, contract, company, property), that may be a red flag.

As far as I know, firms do not place a lot of importance on first year results in particular. If anything, these will be the results they generally see as being the leat reflective of a candidate's true ability and potential, as recruiters also know that transitioning to the university life can initially be difficult for many people.

As for your last question, there are indeed a few firms that are known to be more grade focused than others. Slaughters is said to have an informal rule to only hire candidates who have achieved/are on track to achieve a 1.1, while Cleary, Davis Polk, and Debevoise are said to target candidates who have at least a high 2.1. Nonetheless, I have not heard of any of these firms having a strict disqualification policy for an individual 2.2 module grade. The only information in that regard I have come across is about Linklaters, who apparently confirmed on email to a forum member that this is their policy in absence of mitigating circumstances.

 

[Andrei Radu]

@ZNadeem @Andrei Radu For standard, 'Why this firm' qs, what is the best approach to answer these types of questions that maintains specificity and conciseness?

Also, what would be a good angle to approach this question if a firm is PE heavy if, I have only done a few Forage courses in this area? Is there any other ways I could evidence my interest in this area, apart from being an avid reader of different newsletters?- Despite having it, I find it a little difficult to demonstrate interest in these areas in applications generally, so would massively appreciate your insights!
Thank you in advance!

I think the best approach for why the firm questions is the following:

1. Step 1: Identify one of the firm's unique selling points (USPs) that you can justify an interest in - i.e practice area and sector strengths, strategy and growth, client base, practice area spread, training programme, etc.
2. Step 2: Explain what about the chosen USP attracts you. In the case of a practice area, you need to identify the elements of the work in that practice that are relevantly different from work in other practice areas. For instance, in the case of PE, you could explain how PE dealmaking involves fast-paced work on a many different types of deals in different sectors, which means your work will be very varied and novel in the challenges it presents - perhaps as opposed to advisory/contentious work, where matters tend to last for a way longer period. You could also explain how the practice is perhaps the "most commercial" one, as it involves learning everything about the companies involved in a transaction and the market they operate in, to then leverage this knowledge in negotiation of contractual terms and get the best deal for a client.
3. Step 3: Connect the motivation to your experiences. A golden rule in applications writing is: "show, don't tell". Everyone can claim to have an interest in a practice area; the key is to do your best to demonstrate to a recruiter that in your case, your interest is genuine. The best way of doing that is to describe an experience which showcases your interest. Importantly, the experience need not be one of actual work at a company/firm having anything to do with the relevant practice area/sectors - recruiters are well aware that such roles are very limited for people at a student/recent graduate level. You can leverage many different experiences, including Forage Virtual Internships, firm events, negotiations and commercial awareness competitions; AND/OR
4. Step 4: If you feel your experiences do not suffice to show strong interest, or if you simply have the space and think you can add value to your application in this way in the context of your broader answer, you can also demonstrate interest by showing off your deeper understanding of the practice area of choice. This is because showing you have spent a significant amount of time researching an area is a strong indicator you are actually interested in it. Thus, in the case of PE, you could discuss recent trends in the industry you have researched, or significant transactions that impacted the market/that your firm got to work on.

 

[Andrei Radu]

@ZNadeem @Andrei Radu For standard, 'Why this firm' qs, what is the best approach to answer these types of questions that maintains specificity and conciseness?

Also, what would be a good angle to approach this question if a firm is PE heavy if, I have only done a few Forage courses in this area? Is there any other ways I could evidence my interest in this area, apart from being an avid reader of different newsletters?- Despite having it, I find it a little difficult to demonstrate interest in these areas in applications generally, so would massively appreciate your insights!
Thank you in advance!

Also, in case this may be useful, I thought to copy bellow a section of my successful Willkie application where I discussed an interest in PE. As you can see here, a very concise explanation of you interest can also suffice:

The first reason why I am applying to Willkie Farr & Gallagher (Willkie) is its unique position as a US firm with strong transactional and contentious practices. Having enjoyed learning about businesses in two M&A-focused Virtual Experiences, I am attracted by the firm’s PE expertise. In an Open Day Philip Coletto explained that the sector-agnostic approach means trainees are exposed to a diverse range of transactions, developing into more versatile and commercially aware lawyers. However, in my summer internship at DLA Piper I also enjoyed conducting research into niche areas of the law to construct arguments for commercial litigations. Training at Willkie would enable me to also explore my interest in disputes and thus to make an informed decision when qualifying.

 

[londonlawyer]

Can you clarify what you mean by no long answer questions? I didn't have to answer any questions, not even a personal statement. View attachment 7282

That's what I was suprised about - that there are no questions or personal statement to submit

 

[whywhy88]

Freshfield's confirmed via a pre-launch webinar thingy that I attended the other day that they have changed the application process quite significantly. Instead of long answer questions, there is only an initial application form with work experience etc and then an online assessment (which I believe is like a mix of critical reasoning and SJT type questions with a few video questions thrown in as well) and then, if successful, an AC. They have a preparation portal on their early careers website (like Hogan Lovells) and the whole thing is ran by Cappfinity I believe.

 

[berocca567]

Freshfield's confirmed via a pre-launch webinar thingy that I attended the other day that they have changed the application process quite significantly. Instead of long answer questions, there is only an initial application form with work experience etc and then an online assessment (which I believe is like a mix of critical reasoning and SJT type questions with a few video questions thrown in as well) and then, if successful, an AC. They have a preparation portal on their early careers website (like Hogan Lovells) and the whole thing is ran by Cappfinity I believe.

Thanks! But what a shame... Seems everyone just judges by SJTs now

 

[Meg_Thee_Applicant]

Has anyone else had a problem with getting through the White and Case application?

Me- tried to apply for the VS, I applied for the DTC last cycle and it says I can’t apply for both. Will email GR

 

[1stCycleApplicant]

Have White & Case introduced an online assessment this year? I don't remember having to do one last cycle... maybe i'm misremembering. If they have, that's yet another firm moving towards online tests.

 

[Alturistic whale]

Also, in case this may be useful, I thought to copy bellow a section of my successful Willkie application where I discussed an interest in PE. As you can see here, a very concise explanation of you interest can also suffice:

The first reason why I am applying to Willkie Farr & Gallagher (Willkie) is its unique position as a US firm with strong transactional and contentious practices. Having enjoyed learning about businesses in two M&A-focused Virtual Experiences, I am attracted by the firm’s PE expertise. In an Open Day Philip Coletto explained that the sector-agnostic approach means trainees are exposed to a diverse range of transactions, developing into more versatile and commercially aware lawyers. However, in my summer internship at DLA Piper I also enjoyed conducting research into niche areas of the law to construct arguments for commercial litigations. Training at Willkie would enable me to also explore my interest in disputes and thus to make an informed decision when qualifying.

Thanks Andrei! Super helpful to see a worked example!!

 

[Lawlife5]

Freshfield's confirmed via a pre-launch webinar thingy that I attended the other day that they have changed the application process quite significantly. Instead of long answer questions, there is only an initial application form with work experience etc and then an online assessment (which I believe is like a mix of critical reasoning and SJT type questions with a few video questions thrown in as well) and then, if successful, an AC. They have a preparation portal on their early careers website (like Hogan Lovells) and the whole thing is ran by Cappfinity I believe.

Where do you find these events?

 

[nbjani]

Does anyone have any insights into the Hogan Lovells job simulation assessment? Especially re: what types of video questions to prepare for, I.e. should I prepare for motivational based questions or more skills/situation based?

 

[SamiyaJ]

Does anyone have any insights into the Hogan Lovells job simulation assessment? Especially re: what types of video questions to prepare for, I.e. should I prepare for motivational based questions or more skills/situation based?

Hey,

I did it a couple of weeks ago and there wasn’t a VI element

 

[TortillaTC]

Does anyone have any insights into the Hogan Lovells job simulation assessment? Especially re: what types of video questions to prepare for, I.e. should I prepare for motivational based questions or more skills/situation based?

There’s no VI just the job simulation test and a WG-like test as part of it.

 

[Diana54]

I submitted my HSF Kramer application, and as soon as I submitted it I realised that in one of responses to the application question, I consistently refer to the firm as just "HSF." I honestly have no idea how I missed that, and I’m really gutted about it especially as I think the rest of my application is strong and spent the last week writing it. It's so frustrating to think that this mistake probably means I won’t have a chance of passing the application review. Has anyone made a similar error and got through?

 

[whywhy88]

Where do you find these events?

I emailed grad rec a while ago to enquire about reasonable adjustments for the winter vac scheme and they informed me that they weren't running it this year but then sent me a link to the online pre-launch event thingy for the new application process

 

[Andrei Radu]

I submitted my HSF Kramer application, and as soon as I submitted it I realised that in one of responses to the application question, I consistently refer to the firm as just "HSF." I honestly have no idea how I missed that, and I’m really gutted about it especially as I think the rest of my application is strong and spent the last week writing it. It's so frustrating to think that this mistake probably means I won’t have a chance of passing the application review. Has anyone made a similar error and got through?

While I have not personally been in this situation, I have definitely heard of people misspelling the name of their firm once or twice and still getting through. While it's difficult to say how the firm will react in your situation, given that the HSF-Kramer merger was only completed last year, there are reasons to think you may not be immediately disqualified if the rest of your application is strong.

Firstly, the phenomenon of law firms having huge name-changing mergers is a very new one, and recruiters will be aware that students (and the broader market) may well need some time to adapt and to fully digest it. Essentially, in the case of firms like HSFK their historical branding as HSF may simply be too sticky at the moment for the firm to expect everyone to always refer to them as 'HSFK or HSK Kramer' - over the past few months, I have definitely come across some articles in the legal press that still referred to the firm as HSF. Moreover, in discussions about the firm, most lawyers I have come across still refer to the firm simply as HSF. Thus, they may not take a huge issue with you doing it as well.

Secondly, firms like HSFK will be very used to abbreviations when it comes to their name. Since there is no short firm abbreviation that the market has fully settled on yet for the firm (notice how I used both "HSFK" and "HSF Kramer"), the firm may just assume you are using your own idea of what that abbreviation will be - particularly if you have also referred to the name of the firm in long form in the initial parts of your answers.

 

[DavidJC]

Just wanted to share some info I got from an applications workshop with HSF Kramer last week as I see a lot of uncertainty around references to the firm and hopefully this helps everyone still applying to their Spring/Summer Schemes or submitting for their Winter Scheme in the next few hours.

Graduate recruitment specified that HSF Kramer is 100% the preference. No mention of "Levin" in the name and they indicated some apprehension about HSFK, but only further re-emphasised that HSF Kramer is the preference, by far.

 

[berocca567]

I submitted my HSF Kramer application, and as soon as I submitted it I realised that in one of responses to the application question, I consistently refer to the firm as just "HSF." I honestly have no idea how I missed that, and I’m really gutted about it especially as I think the rest of my application is strong and spent the last week writing it. It's so frustrating to think that this mistake probably means I won’t have a chance of passing the application review. Has anyone made a similar error and got through?

In the question, they refer to themselves as HSF: Why are you interested in pursuing a career at HSF (300words). So I can't imagine it'd be a problem - they've done it.

 

[jojo23]

In the question, they refer to themselves as HSF: Why are you interested in pursuing a career at HSF (300words). So I can't imagine it'd be a problem - they've done it.

"Do as we say, not as we do" kinda vibes