Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forum Home
Law Firms
Wiki
Events
Deadlines
Members
Leaderboards
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Premium Database
Hey Guest, Happy Valentine's Day! Sending our 💙 this weekend. We're all rooting for you in your training contract journey.
TCLA Premium:
Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andrei Radu" data-source="post: 223298" data-attributes="member: 36777"><p>Hi [USER=42426]@Amgrad[/USER] this is a great question and targets an issue that many candidates struggle with when they apply to firms with smaller/newer London presences. My answer to your question of how to show interest in their departments is two-fold: firstly, I will explain why not having a Chambers/Legal 500 band 1/tier 1 ranking is definitely no bar to one of your 'why the firm' reasons being the firm's expertise in that practice area - and indeed why any Chambers ranking is thought to be proof of a strength in the area; secondly, I will focus on how to express an interest in a firm's departments that goes beyond the usual "market-leading expertise/strength" in the area based reasoning.</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 15px">A) Why you can justify a "why the firm" practice area-based motivation on any Chambers ranking </span></strong></p><p></p><p>While you may very roughly think of band 1 to band 4 Chambers rankings as going from the "best" to the "worst" in reputation,<strong> this best-to-worst ranking is only a ranking of a select handful of firms which are already considered to be the best in the jurisdiction for that type if work. </strong>To take high-end Corporate M&A as an example: there are around 20 firms in total Chambers ranks here from band 1 to band 2. Nonetheless, there are more than 100 firms in the City that will provide corporate M&A advice and that would love to make it to the ratings. While a band 1 corporate M&A firm (say, <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/freshfields.13" target="_blank">Freshfields</a>) can normally be assumed to have a stronger reputation in M&A than a band 4 firm (say, <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/white-case.74" target="_blank">White & Case</a>), <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/white-case.74" target="_blank">White & Case</a> can still be assumed to have a much stronger reputation in M&A than the significant majority of firms who do not even make it to the rankings - which in this case includes many big names, such as <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/gibson-dunn-crutcher.24" target="_blank">Gibson Dunn</a>, <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/travers-smith.19" target="_blank">Travers Smith</a>, <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/bclp.21" target="_blank">BCLP</a>, Milbank, etc. Generally speaking, if a firm's practice gets a Chambers ranking, it is good enough to be mentioned as a reason to want to join the firm (although, to differentiate it from similarly/better ranked rivals, you may not want to have it as the only reason you list). </p><p></p><p>A second point that should be made is that <strong>Chambers/LegaL 500 rankings are not an indicator of absolute quality</strong>, in that they are influenced by the<strong> size of the firm's practice. </strong>Chambers rankings do not only assess for the quality of a firm's work - ie are their usual mandates consistently high-end and complex ones, does it have blue-chip clients etc - but also the quantity, as this is also a factor for establishing reputation. As such, larger and older firms, such as the Magic Circle, will generally have an advantage over newer firms. Thus, if you are principally interested in quality of work rather than general renown, you can motivate choosing a lower band-ranked firm because of factors such as: (i) a higher average deal/case value; (ii) having a high proportion of highly-ranked practitioners; (iii) punching above their weight by getting a Chambers ranking despite lower headcount; etc. All of these are examples of factors that could be indicative of a high-quality practice, despite not being as renowned as the practice of the largest players in the market.</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 15px">B) Interest in a practice area beyond general "strong/market-leading" expertise </span></strong></p><p></p><p>Importantly, the Chambers rankings operate at a high level of generality, while you could tie your interests to more specific subareas pf a firm's practice area. Thus, while a firm may be ranked "just" band 4, there are likely particular subareas (say life sciences M&A, or tech M&A) where they have stronger expertise than in other areas, and potentially even market leading expertise. For instance, <a href="https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/white-case.74" target="_blank">White & Case</a>, a band-4 ranked firm for corporate M&A, is generally thought to be among the best firms for infrastructure/energy-liked M&A work. Likewise, Gibson Dunn, a firm that is not necessarily known to be one of the best of the best in general PE dealmaking, is seen as the go-to firm for European/cross-border PE infrastructure investments. Thus, you can further individualise your interest not just by looking at <strong>sector-based specialties within a practice area,</strong> but also by looking at <strong>geographical spread of expertise. </strong></p><p></p><p>The aforementioned are just some examples of factors you can consider when you want to look beyond general expertise. Nonetheless, there are many others you could tie your interest to, such as:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Strategy</strong>: how is the firm looking to expand this area; have there been any recent lateral hires, headcount growth, partner promotions etc?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Client base</strong>: does the firm have any big clients in the industry that you are particularly attracted to working with?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Organisation</strong>: how broad/narrow is the practice's organisation - do you have teams split by sub-types of legal work in the department (i.e. different private vs public M&A teams) or by the different types of clients they service (i.e. splits by sector focus), or is the organisation more generalist (e.g. some firm's corporate departments include everything from public/private corporate M&A, PE, corporate governance, JVs, general commercial contracts to equity capital markets work). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Importance within the firm/office:</strong> certain practice areas are more central to a firm's operations, which can affect your chances of getting a seat or qualifying in said practice. </li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andrei Radu, post: 223298, member: 36777"] Hi [USER=42426]@Amgrad[/USER] this is a great question and targets an issue that many candidates struggle with when they apply to firms with smaller/newer London presences. My answer to your question of how to show interest in their departments is two-fold: firstly, I will explain why not having a Chambers/Legal 500 band 1/tier 1 ranking is definitely no bar to one of your 'why the firm' reasons being the firm's expertise in that practice area - and indeed why any Chambers ranking is thought to be proof of a strength in the area; secondly, I will focus on how to express an interest in a firm's departments that goes beyond the usual "market-leading expertise/strength" in the area based reasoning. [B][SIZE=4]A) Why you can justify a "why the firm" practice area-based motivation on any Chambers ranking [/SIZE][/B] While you may very roughly think of band 1 to band 4 Chambers rankings as going from the "best" to the "worst" in reputation,[B] this best-to-worst ranking is only a ranking of a select handful of firms which are already considered to be the best in the jurisdiction for that type if work. [/B]To take high-end Corporate M&A as an example: there are around 20 firms in total Chambers ranks here from band 1 to band 2. Nonetheless, there are more than 100 firms in the City that will provide corporate M&A advice and that would love to make it to the ratings. While a band 1 corporate M&A firm (say, [URL='https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/freshfields.13']Freshfields[/URL]) can normally be assumed to have a stronger reputation in M&A than a band 4 firm (say, [URL='https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/white-case.74']White & Case[/URL]), [URL='https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/white-case.74']White & Case[/URL] can still be assumed to have a much stronger reputation in M&A than the significant majority of firms who do not even make it to the rankings - which in this case includes many big names, such as [URL='https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/gibson-dunn-crutcher.24']Gibson Dunn[/URL], [URL='https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/travers-smith.19']Travers Smith[/URL], [URL='https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/bclp.21']BCLP[/URL], Milbank, etc. Generally speaking, if a firm's practice gets a Chambers ranking, it is good enough to be mentioned as a reason to want to join the firm (although, to differentiate it from similarly/better ranked rivals, you may not want to have it as the only reason you list). A second point that should be made is that [B]Chambers/LegaL 500 rankings are not an indicator of absolute quality[/B], in that they are influenced by the[B] size of the firm's practice. [/B]Chambers rankings do not only assess for the quality of a firm's work - ie are their usual mandates consistently high-end and complex ones, does it have blue-chip clients etc - but also the quantity, as this is also a factor for establishing reputation. As such, larger and older firms, such as the Magic Circle, will generally have an advantage over newer firms. Thus, if you are principally interested in quality of work rather than general renown, you can motivate choosing a lower band-ranked firm because of factors such as: (i) a higher average deal/case value; (ii) having a high proportion of highly-ranked practitioners; (iii) punching above their weight by getting a Chambers ranking despite lower headcount; etc. All of these are examples of factors that could be indicative of a high-quality practice, despite not being as renowned as the practice of the largest players in the market. [B][SIZE=4]B) Interest in a practice area beyond general "strong/market-leading" expertise [/SIZE][/B] Importantly, the Chambers rankings operate at a high level of generality, while you could tie your interests to more specific subareas pf a firm's practice area. Thus, while a firm may be ranked "just" band 4, there are likely particular subareas (say life sciences M&A, or tech M&A) where they have stronger expertise than in other areas, and potentially even market leading expertise. For instance, [URL='https://directory.thecorporatelawacademy.com/profile/white-case.74']White & Case[/URL], a band-4 ranked firm for corporate M&A, is generally thought to be among the best firms for infrastructure/energy-liked M&A work. Likewise, Gibson Dunn, a firm that is not necessarily known to be one of the best of the best in general PE dealmaking, is seen as the go-to firm for European/cross-border PE infrastructure investments. Thus, you can further individualise your interest not just by looking at [B]sector-based specialties within a practice area,[/B] but also by looking at [B]geographical spread of expertise. [/B] The aforementioned are just some examples of factors you can consider when you want to look beyond general expertise. Nonetheless, there are many others you could tie your interest to, such as: [LIST] [*][B]Strategy[/B]: how is the firm looking to expand this area; have there been any recent lateral hires, headcount growth, partner promotions etc? [*][B]Client base[/B]: does the firm have any big clients in the industry that you are particularly attracted to working with? [*][B]Organisation[/B]: how broad/narrow is the practice's organisation - do you have teams split by sub-types of legal work in the department (i.e. different private vs public M&A teams) or by the different types of clients they service (i.e. splits by sector focus), or is the organisation more generalist (e.g. some firm's corporate departments include everything from public/private corporate M&A, PE, corporate governance, JVs, general commercial contracts to equity capital markets work). [*][B]Importance within the firm/office:[/B] certain practice areas are more central to a firm's operations, which can affect your chances of getting a seat or qualifying in said practice. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
