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
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: 227111" data-attributes="member: 36777"><p>I see - my answer is still mostly the same as the one before: <strong>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</strong>. 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andrei Radu, post: 227111, member: 36777"] I see - my answer is still mostly the same as the one before: [B]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[/B]. 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. [/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…