Such a lovely introduction! Your experiences are inspiring, thank you very much for sharing your story with us 🙏
-
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
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.
Helloo
Honestly, I think this feeling is incredibly common as a graduate, especially if you’re comparing yourself to people who seem to have everything lined up already.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t get a TC until two years after I graduated, and I applied consistently during that time. I felt like I was “behind” pretty much the whole way through. But when I did a vacation scheme, the age range was much wider than I expected. The oldest person on mine was 33. It really put into perspective how artificial the pressure is to have everything sorted at 20–21.
The reality is the average age of qualification is late 20s, so not securing a TC straight out of university is completely normal, even though it doesn’t feel that way when you’re in it.
I also think the years after graduating can be genuinely valuable. I worked in a graduate role that wasn’t strictly legal, but because of the industry, I ended up learning a lot about areas like IP, alongside developing commercial awareness and confidence. Firms do care about what you’ve done outside academics, including work experience, interests, and how you’ve spent your time.
There’s also so much you can do post-uni that isn’t “wasted time”. Travel, grad jobs, different industries, even just figuring out what you enjoy and what you don’t. Looking back, I’m actually glad I didn’t get a TC during university because of the experiences and people I wouldn’t have had otherwise, and those things have definitely helped me since.
It’s much easier said than done, but comparing timelines really doesn’t help. Everyone’s path looks different, and yours doesn’t need to match anyone else’s to be valid.
From a fellow graduate 🤝
Honestly, I think this feeling is incredibly common as a graduate, especially if you’re comparing yourself to people who seem to have everything lined up already.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t get a TC until two years after I graduated, and I applied consistently during that time. I felt like I was “behind” pretty much the whole way through. But when I did a vacation scheme, the age range was much wider than I expected. The oldest person on mine was 33. It really put into perspective how artificial the pressure is to have everything sorted at 20–21.
The reality is the average age of qualification is late 20s, so not securing a TC straight out of university is completely normal, even though it doesn’t feel that way when you’re in it.
I also think the years after graduating can be genuinely valuable. I worked in a graduate role that wasn’t strictly legal, but because of the industry, I ended up learning a lot about areas like IP, alongside developing commercial awareness and confidence. Firms do care about what you’ve done outside academics, including work experience, interests, and how you’ve spent your time.
There’s also so much you can do post-uni that isn’t “wasted time”. Travel, grad jobs, different industries, even just figuring out what you enjoy and what you don’t. Looking back, I’m actually glad I didn’t get a TC during university because of the experiences and people I wouldn’t have had otherwise, and those things have definitely helped me since.
It’s much easier said than done, but comparing timelines really doesn’t help. Everyone’s path looks different, and yours doesn’t need to match anyone else’s to be valid.
From a fellow graduate 🤝
Hmm sorry correct me if I’m understanding you incorrectly …
But yes, Skadden is very much known for their transactional practice areas I would say, so perhaps mentioning other areas might be a weaker link. And absolutely, the rule is to never use contractions (it’s, I’m etc) and abbreviations unless you’ve expanded on it once beforehand (e.g. Clifford Chance (CC)).
In terms of aligning with what the question asks or with the firm’s expectations, I would say you can choose to pay for services if you wish to, but I personally don’t. Honestly, whenever I don’t fully understand what the question is asking of me, I put it into ChatGPT or something and discuss it with them to ascertain what the question is trying to get at (sometimes questions can have implicit expectations as well).
Don’t worry about Kirkland - I haven’t heard back either 😂 hopefully we’ll hear back favourably soon!
That’s a very normal reaction, so try not to be too hard on yourself. A lot of people who are usually confident speakers find video interviews awkward and artificial, especially when you’re talking to a screen with no feedback. It often feels much worse than it actually comes across.
On the repetition point, that’s also very common. These questions are often designed to overlap, so some crossover in themes is almost unavoidable. As long as you shifted the angle slightly, that’s not a bad thing at all. Grad rec expect candidates to reinforce key motivations across answers rather than produce completely siloed responses.
If you do want to feel more comfortable with the format, it can really help to practise in conditions that mimic the real thing. Portals like Assessment Day (https://www.assessmentday.co.uk) are useful for this, as they let you get used to structuring answers under time pressure and speaking naturally to a camera rather than an interviewer.
That said, it’s also worth noting that if you genuinely dislike video interviews, you’re not alone and you’re not stuck with them. There are plenty of firms that don’t use video interviews at all in their recruitment process. Such as Fried Frank, Addleshaw, etc.
I hope this helps
On the repetition point, that’s also very common. These questions are often designed to overlap, so some crossover in themes is almost unavoidable. As long as you shifted the angle slightly, that’s not a bad thing at all. Grad rec expect candidates to reinforce key motivations across answers rather than produce completely siloed responses.
If you do want to feel more comfortable with the format, it can really help to practise in conditions that mimic the real thing. Portals like Assessment Day (https://www.assessmentday.co.uk) are useful for this, as they let you get used to structuring answers under time pressure and speaking naturally to a camera rather than an interviewer.
That said, it’s also worth noting that if you genuinely dislike video interviews, you’re not alone and you’re not stuck with them. There are plenty of firms that don’t use video interviews at all in their recruitment process. Such as Fried Frank, Addleshaw, etc.
I hope this helps
Hi, I’m a bit late to this message but hopefully I can shed some light 💡
I was in a similar position. I completed two vacation schemes in my first cycle and didn’t convert either, and I was definitely apprehensive about including them in my next round of applications.
What helped was keeping it factual and reflective, rather than defensive. Focus on:
I was in a similar position. I completed two vacation schemes in my first cycle and didn’t convert either, and I was definitely apprehensive about including them in my next round of applications.
What helped was keeping it factual and reflective, rather than defensive. Focus on:
- the teams or practice areas you sat in
- the type of work you did (research, drafting, due diligence, etc.)
- what you learned about how firms operate and what kind of work you enjoy
You don’t need to mention non-conversion or justify anything. Firms expect people to have prior schemes, and not converting is very common.
Used properly, previous vacation schemes show that you understand the role and have tested your interest in commercial law, which is a positive rather than a negative.
Good luck 😄
I experienced this before joining TCLA last year, I was the only student at my college to pass through the screening stage at JPMC Geneva to an interview. I got invited to unsolicited app through DMs by many MNCs (10+ offers) through LinkedIn, yet I've experienced some burnouts and imposter syndrome.
For me of course being an underdog isn't that easy, but ikr it's hard if your closest one and surroundings can't understand you. Just said that we're all here for you even though it's far away and virtual, don't hesitate to ask anything as it could comfort you or gaining your confidence back. Many people in the same boat.
Last edited:
Hi Ilikelaw,
Don't worry, it is Not a silly question at all – this is actually a really sensible thing to be thinking about, and it comes up a lot with many other firms wording.
If I were you, I wouldn’t move the legal clinic experience out of the work experience section if it’s already there. Advising in a university legal clinic is very clearly work-experience-type content, and Cooley will expect to see it there. Moving it risks making the work experience section look thinner, and it can also feel a bit like you’re forcing it to fit a different box just because it’s strong.
That said, yes – legal clinic absolutely does count as a position of responsibility. You’re dealing with real clients, managing confidentiality, giving advice under supervision, and often taking ownership of matters. That’s exactly the sort of responsibility firms like value.
The key thing here is not repetition, but how you decide to angle it.
What I would do is:
Don't worry, it is Not a silly question at all – this is actually a really sensible thing to be thinking about, and it comes up a lot with many other firms wording.
If I were you, I wouldn’t move the legal clinic experience out of the work experience section if it’s already there. Advising in a university legal clinic is very clearly work-experience-type content, and Cooley will expect to see it there. Moving it risks making the work experience section look thinner, and it can also feel a bit like you’re forcing it to fit a different box just because it’s strong.
That said, yes – legal clinic absolutely does count as a position of responsibility. You’re dealing with real clients, managing confidentiality, giving advice under supervision, and often taking ownership of matters. That’s exactly the sort of responsibility firms like value.
The key thing here is not repetition, but how you decide to angle it.
What I would do is:
- Keep the legal clinic in the work experience section, where you focus on what you did and what you learned.
- In this “interests/activities/positions of responsibility” question, you can briefly reference it from a responsibility/skills angle, but without rehashing the same description.
For example, instead of explaining the clinic again, you might say something like:
- taking responsibility for client interviews,
- managing competing deadlines,
- exercising judgement in advising clients,
- being accountable for the quality of your work.
That way, you’re adding new information, not repeating yourself.
On your other point, I agree with your instinct not to use Year 11 positions – four years on, may certainly to feel a bit juvenile at this stage.
I hope this helps! Feel free to DM me for anything relating to this.
On your other point, I agree with your instinct not to use Year 11 positions – four years on, may certainly to feel a bit juvenile at this stage.
I hope this helps! Feel free to DM me for anything relating to this.
Similar threads
- Sticky
