-
Join Premium →Get Everything You Need to Secure a Training ContractNow half the price. Join TCLA Premium for £30/month and get step-by-step application support, daily commercial awareness practice, and 700+ successful examples of past applications and interview experiences. Plus so much more.
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
- Thread starter Ram Sabaratnam
- Start date
Ahh that makes total sense. The fact it isn’t a standard post-rejection feedback call is a really good sign, not a bad one.
You don’t need to “perform” on the call. Treat it as a professional conversation rather than an assessment. Being engaged, reflective and appreciative will already leave a good impression. Listening carefully, asking one or two thoughtful questions and thanking them for their time is more than enough.
If it helps, you can frame things like “That’s really helpful to hear, I’ll definitely work on that going forward.” From my experience grad rec tend to love that kind of self-awareness.
Try not to overthink it. They wouldn’t be taking the time to speak to you if they didn’t see potential!
Hi all! I received a call yesterday that I got Freshfields' Summer Vac Scheme, and I just wanted to ask if anyone had any insight into what the VS to TC conversion rates are like? I heard last year that they were quite low... apparently they've been oversubscribing spots for the last couple of years/business demand has been lower and that's why? I'm penultimate non-law, so I'd only start a TC in 2029, which I'm hoping hasn't had many spots taken yet. I'm just trying to work out whether it is worth still applying to a bunch of places in the hopes of perhaps getting a second vac scheme as a back up (but I admit, even getting a single one feels impossible lol.)
Hi, sorry this has happened, that’s understandably stressful.
This does sound like it’s likely been triggered by an automatic eligibility screen, rather than someone actually reviewing your circumstances properly.
That said, “withdrawn” on the portal usually does mean the application has been closed on their end, rather than still being live. It’s important to not assume it’s final without checking.
I would recommend emailing graduate recruitment directly.
This does sound like it’s likely been triggered by an automatic eligibility screen, rather than someone actually reviewing your circumstances properly.
That said, “withdrawn” on the portal usually does mean the application has been closed on their end, rather than still being live. It’s important to not assume it’s final without checking.
I would recommend emailing graduate recruitment directly.
- You are on a Student visa
- You doo not require sponsorship
- The scheme dates fall outside your term dates
- Asking whether this was an automated decision that can be reviewed
Good luck
Yes I'll do that, thank you so much. I was actually panicking lol...Hi, sorry this has happened, that’s understandably stressful.
This does sound like it’s likely been triggered by an automatic eligibility screen, rather than someone actually reviewing your circumstances properly.
That said, “withdrawn” on the portal usually does mean the application has been closed on their end, rather than still being live. It’s important to not assume it’s final without checking.
I would recommend emailing graduate recruitment directly.
- You are on a Student visa
- You doo not require sponsorship
- The scheme dates fall outside your term dates
- Asking whether this was an automated decision that can be reviewed
Good luck
Once again, I do appreciate the advice.
However, I disagree that I have what firms want to see.
I have retail experience. I have tried my hardest to highlight the wide array of transferrable skills which I gained from these experiences.
However, when a firm asks you to describe a time "...where you overcame a challenge" or "...where you showed initiative", one's experience working at Sainsbury's (etc.) pales in comparison to somebody else's experience throughout their internship in finance or completing a vacation scheme.
If I'm being completely honest, firms want to see potential. After graduating with a mid-high 2:1, without extensive experience in a relevant field, I have essentially proven to firms that my potential is minimal. And, the likelihood is that I won't land a role in commercial law by completing forage experiences to bolster my CV... so, you're right that cold calling law firms might be one of my best options at the moment.
Yes, you can chime in!
I understand that my experience isn't uncommon and that everybody works at their own pace towards getting a TC. That's why I'm making these posts – in the hope that they resonate with other people (graduates) in my position.
I have been focussing on the quality of my applications – I have actually always been the type of person to spend days on an application, rather than firing them off without much care. This cycle, I've managed to send off 11 high-quality applications. As mentioned earlier, the outcome has been less than desirable.
I agree that working elsewhere might be valuable for securing a career in commercial law. However, finding a role in an adjacent field is nowhere near as easy as it is described on this forum. Most paralegal roles I see going nowadays require applicants to be future trainees. And, alternatively, other (legal) roles in related fields (e.g. tech, finance, life sciences) are highly competitive.
Yes, I do agree that taking longer (or doing things in a different order) isn't indicative of failure. Still, what frustrates me is how undesirable I am to firms at this point in time (despite my genuine desire to work within the areas of law I have developed a passion for throughout my degree and personal life).
Such a lovely introduction! Your experiences are inspiring, thank you very much for sharing your story with us 🙏
Thank you for taking the time to reply, that's exactly what I did in the end. Except I then started stressing about the fact I didn't apologise for the mistake and was worried my email would come across as "Hey, FYI, I made a mistake on my application. Cheers" 🤦♂️
BUT, they replied with a "Thanks for the clarification" and nothing about binning me off so I'm assuming it's full steam ahead!
I've already done all of your advice, esp abt using the max word count, but I do believe for my case I was not aware of:
• Transactional focus, at the end of paragraph of 'why Skadden' I linked it back with my regulatory aspect of my work at the UN, I should have highlighted more of the non-contentious work and London office in this section.
• I made 2 abbreviations like my CC's TC & GD's OD apps. I knew I wrote things like 'don't' or "it's" which is grammatically correct, but I've realised that some firms don't like this type of writing, especially for bigger firm. I made to Goodwin, Cooley, and Taylor Wessing Open Day with these mistakes, but they care more about your topic than sort of aspects.
• I do believe I've also had some unmatched to their expectations on different part of other Essay Qs 😭 I am wondering that by written TCLA when they asked about "which organisation help you on this application?" won't lower your chance to pass as I didn't request for one on one paid session like others prev said yet got PFO as me.
Their feedback on to ask other poofreading provider to review your app is so vague! I only use general tips from everybody on this forum esp Abbie and Andrei. 🥲
Now I am wondering "WOULD KIRKLAND DUMB ME TOO?" as these firms share common value lmao I applied on Friday (2 days before deadline), yet no VI invite
Last edited:
As a future trainee at a US firm with a strong transactional focus, I’ve come across this question (or variations of it) quite a lot, and the strongest answers I’ve seen tend to do three things well.
Firstly, they acknowledge the overlap. Transactional law and investment banking both sit at the heart of deals, involve intense workloads, and require strong commercial awareness. Recognising this upfront shows you’re realistic about what the work actually looks like.
Secondly, they demonstrate a clear understanding of the distinction between the roles. Interviewers want to see that you understand lawyers and bankers do fundamentally different things on the same transaction. Lawyers act as advisers and problem-solvers, focusing on structuring, legal risk, negotiation and drafting, while bankers concentrate on valuation, financing and driving commercial execution. You don’t need technical depth, just clarity.
Thirdly, they explain why law genuinely appeals more. This is where the focus shifts back to personal fit. Many strong answers touch on enjoying analytical and detail-driven work, preferring an advisory role with ongoing responsibility rather than a revenue-driven one, and being interested in being involved throughout the lifecycle of a transaction (for example, from the early structuring discussions, through due diligence and negotiation, and then seeing the deal through to signing and completion). You can lightly anchor this to relevant experiences, but the emphasis should be on reasoning rather than credentials.
I’d finish by reinforcing that your interest in transactional law comes from a genuine understanding of what the role involves and a considered comparison with investment banking. The aim is to leave the grad rec team with the sense that this is a deliberate, well-informed choice rooted in how you like to think, work, and add value on deals, rather than a default option. Framed this way, the answer demonstrates clarity of motivation and long-term commitment, which is ultimately what this kind of question is testing.
I hope this helps, feel free to DM me!
Firstly, they acknowledge the overlap. Transactional law and investment banking both sit at the heart of deals, involve intense workloads, and require strong commercial awareness. Recognising this upfront shows you’re realistic about what the work actually looks like.
Secondly, they demonstrate a clear understanding of the distinction between the roles. Interviewers want to see that you understand lawyers and bankers do fundamentally different things on the same transaction. Lawyers act as advisers and problem-solvers, focusing on structuring, legal risk, negotiation and drafting, while bankers concentrate on valuation, financing and driving commercial execution. You don’t need technical depth, just clarity.
Thirdly, they explain why law genuinely appeals more. This is where the focus shifts back to personal fit. Many strong answers touch on enjoying analytical and detail-driven work, preferring an advisory role with ongoing responsibility rather than a revenue-driven one, and being interested in being involved throughout the lifecycle of a transaction (for example, from the early structuring discussions, through due diligence and negotiation, and then seeing the deal through to signing and completion). You can lightly anchor this to relevant experiences, but the emphasis should be on reasoning rather than credentials.
I’d finish by reinforcing that your interest in transactional law comes from a genuine understanding of what the role involves and a considered comparison with investment banking. The aim is to leave the grad rec team with the sense that this is a deliberate, well-informed choice rooted in how you like to think, work, and add value on deals, rather than a default option. Framed this way, the answer demonstrates clarity of motivation and long-term commitment, which is ultimately what this kind of question is testing.
I hope this helps, feel free to DM me!
yes i just got the video interview. anyone have any advice?? do you know what they may ask?
Finally a human response 🤯
How did you overcome rejection after your vacation schemes?
Hey,
Just to add another perspective here, because I recognise this mindset and I fell into it myself.
I also had part-time retail experience and for a long time I avoided using it in competency answers. Whenever I was asked about challenges, initiative, or teamwork, I’d default to my legal experience because I assumed that’s what firms wanted to hear.
Interestingly, feedback I received from one firm was the opposite. They said I was diminishing my non-legal experience, and that they actually wanted to see candidates who valued all of their experiences, not just the “legal” ones. Retail roles can show resilience, communication, problem-solving, and handling pressure far more convincingly than some vac scheme examples, if they’re reflected on properly.
That doesn’t mean retail experience magically levels the playing field, and I completely get why it feels weaker when you’re comparing yourself to candidates with internships. But firms are often more interested in how you extract learning and insight from an experience than how prestigious it sounds on paper.
I know it’s frustrating when effort doesn’t translate into outcomes, especially as a graduate, but I wouldn’t write off your experience or your potential on that basis. A lot of people reading this will be in the same position, even if they don’t say it out loud.
Just to add another perspective here, because I recognise this mindset and I fell into it myself.
I also had part-time retail experience and for a long time I avoided using it in competency answers. Whenever I was asked about challenges, initiative, or teamwork, I’d default to my legal experience because I assumed that’s what firms wanted to hear.
Interestingly, feedback I received from one firm was the opposite. They said I was diminishing my non-legal experience, and that they actually wanted to see candidates who valued all of their experiences, not just the “legal” ones. Retail roles can show resilience, communication, problem-solving, and handling pressure far more convincingly than some vac scheme examples, if they’re reflected on properly.
That doesn’t mean retail experience magically levels the playing field, and I completely get why it feels weaker when you’re comparing yourself to candidates with internships. But firms are often more interested in how you extract learning and insight from an experience than how prestigious it sounds on paper.
I know it’s frustrating when effort doesn’t translate into outcomes, especially as a graduate, but I wouldn’t write off your experience or your potential on that basis. A lot of people reading this will be in the same position, even if they don’t say it out loud.
I hope this helps
Very this. I owe a lot of this cycle going better to Gibson Dunn for this very reason - last year it was my only human interview and they agreed to a feedback phone call after rejecting me. It was useful to know specific questions I could have answered better and also where I was successful and so what to keep doing the same.
Hi Rads,
In short yes. It’s usually fine to follow up, as long as you do it politely and with the right timing. I would suggest waiting 7–10 working days before following up. Grad rec teams are often swamped, especially during application season, and silence usually reflects volume rather than disinterest.
When you do follow up:
- Keep it brief and courteous.
- Reference your original email so they don’t have to search for context.
- Re-attach any supporting documents if you included them before.
- Avoid sounding anxious or pushy, frame it as a gentle check-in.
Hi Olivia,
Last year I applied to bakers and If I remember correctly they were sent in batches. The process could’ve changed this year but no response doesn’t = a bad outcome!
Hi,
I think the key thing to remember from the outset is that grad rec aren’t looking for loyalty tests here. Instead, they’re trying to understand what you did, what you learned, and how that experience has shaped your understanding of commercial law.
With that in mind, when you’re writing about another firm’s vacation scheme, it helps to focus on the work rather than the brand. Deal exposure, research tasks, drafting, client interaction, teamwork, or responsibility you were given all translate well regardless of firm, and that’s what grad rec are most interested in seeing.
Building on that, what matters most is the learning and reflection that came from the scheme. You might explain how it clarified the realities of transactional work, improved your commercial awareness, or helped you understand how lawyers add value on deals. This shifts the emphasis from simply having done a scheme to what you actually took from it.
At the same time, it’s important to keep the tone neutral and professional. You don’t need to explain why you didn’t apply there again or why you prefer the current firm. Avoid overt praise or comparisons and stick to a factual, reflective style that keeps the focus on your development.
Finally, where it feels natural, you can subtly link the experience to your current application. For example, you might mention how the scheme strengthened your interest in law generally or helped you refine what you’re looking for in a firm. That reassures grad rec that you’re applying with intention. At a practical level, concise bullet points often work well in work experience sections, but even in paragraph form the same principle applies: action, responsibility, and outcome or learning. Written thoughtfully, prior schemes at other firms are usually seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
I think the key thing to remember from the outset is that grad rec aren’t looking for loyalty tests here. Instead, they’re trying to understand what you did, what you learned, and how that experience has shaped your understanding of commercial law.
With that in mind, when you’re writing about another firm’s vacation scheme, it helps to focus on the work rather than the brand. Deal exposure, research tasks, drafting, client interaction, teamwork, or responsibility you were given all translate well regardless of firm, and that’s what grad rec are most interested in seeing.
Building on that, what matters most is the learning and reflection that came from the scheme. You might explain how it clarified the realities of transactional work, improved your commercial awareness, or helped you understand how lawyers add value on deals. This shifts the emphasis from simply having done a scheme to what you actually took from it.
At the same time, it’s important to keep the tone neutral and professional. You don’t need to explain why you didn’t apply there again or why you prefer the current firm. Avoid overt praise or comparisons and stick to a factual, reflective style that keeps the focus on your development.
Finally, where it feels natural, you can subtly link the experience to your current application. For example, you might mention how the scheme strengthened your interest in law generally or helped you refine what you’re looking for in a firm. That reassures grad rec that you’re applying with intention. At a practical level, concise bullet points often work well in work experience sections, but even in paragraph form the same principle applies: action, responsibility, and outcome or learning. Written thoughtfully, prior schemes at other firms are usually seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
Similar threads
- Sticky
