TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2026-27

[TCchaser]

Hi @Abbie Whitlock, I hope you're doing well!

I recognise that this has been asked many times on TCLA, but I'm really worried and would like some advice (and anyone else with any perspective on this).

I've received my 2nd year module grades back, and I achieved 1sts and 2.1s in all of them apart from 2 modules (getting 1 2.2 and 1 3rd). My average in both 1st and 2nd years is 65% (with my 2nd-year average dragged down by 2 poorer modules, and all of my 1st-year modules being 2.1). I don't have any disclosed mitigating circumstances.

Do I still have a good chance at applying for most firms? I understand that firms like Slaughters scrutinise individual module grades, but would I still be eligible to apply for the vast majority of them? I understand that firms consider MCs, but as I don't have any, I'm worried that there's no way to contextualise the blips in my results.

I know that this post has been made often, but my lack of MCs and poorer grades are really concerning me. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi @Abbie Whitlock, I hope you're doing well!

I recognise that this has been asked many times on TCLA, but I'm really worried and would like some advice (and anyone else with any perspective on this).

I've received my 2nd year module grades back, and I achieved 1sts and 2.1s in all of them apart from 2 modules (getting 1 2.2 and 1 3rd). My average in both 1st and 2nd years is 65% (with my 2nd-year average dragged down by 2 poorer modules, and all of my 1st-year modules being 2.1). I don't have any disclosed mitigating circumstances.

Do I still have a good chance at applying for most firms? I understand that firms like Slaughters scrutinise individual module grades, but would I still be eligible to apply for the vast majority of them? I understand that firms consider MCs, but as I don't have any, I'm worried that there's no way to contextualise the blips in my results.

I know that this post has been made often, but my lack of MCs and poorer grades are really concerning me. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hi!

I am doing well, thank you - I hope you are too!

No worries at all, and I completely understand why you are worried about this. However, based on what you have said, I personally wouldn't see this as something that rules you out from applying to most firms.

My understanding is that the vast majority of firms are mainly looking at whether you are on track for (or have achieved) an overall 2:1, rather than expecting a 2:1 in every individual module. From what you have said, your overall average across both years is still 65%, which is a solid 2:1 overall.

There are definitely some firms that scrutinise academics more heavily (and may look more closely at individual module performance or expect a 2:1 in every module), but I don't think a couple of lower module marks automatically become a barrier at the majority of firms.

I also wouldn't worry too much about not having mitigating circumstances. They can help contextualise grades where needed, but you don't necessarily need them if your overall academic profile still meets the firm's minimum requirement.

I would focus more on building a balanced application overall (e.g. experience, written answers, commercial awareness, etc.), rather than assuming the two modules will define your chances.

Wishing you the best of luck with applications!

 

[TCchaser]

Hi!

I am doing well, thank you - I hope you are too!

No worries at all, and I completely understand why you are worried about this. However, based on what you have said, I personally wouldn't see this as something that rules you out from applying to most firms.

My understanding is that the vast majority of firms are mainly looking at whether you are on track for (or have achieved) an overall 2:1, rather than expecting a 2:1 in every individual module. From what you have said, your overall average across both years is still 65%, which is a solid 2:1 overall.

There are definitely some firms that scrutinise academics more heavily (and may look more closely at individual module performance or expect a 2:1 in every module), but I don't think a couple of lower module marks automatically become a barrier at the majority of firms.

I also wouldn't worry too much about not having mitigating circumstances. They can help contextualise grades where needed, but you don't necessarily need them if your overall academic profile still meets the firm's minimum requirement.

I would focus more on building a balanced application overall (e.g. experience, written answers, commercial awareness, etc.), rather than assuming the two modules will define your chances.

Wishing you the best of luck with applications!

Thank you so much Abbie, this has helped put my mind more at ease!

 

[yasmars]

Hi @Abbie Whitlock, I have a case study assessment for an upcoming VS, do you have any idea of what this could be and how I can prepare for this more generally? Tysm!!

 

[174Tess9y3]

Hi everyone — I’m starting to think about which firms to target in the next application cycle and would really appreciate any advice on narrowing down a list.

At the moment, I’m particularly drawn to US firms because I like the idea of learning more “on the job”, and I’m much more interested in transactional rather than contentious work. However, lots of US firms have strong transactional practices across so many different areas, so I’m struggling to work out how to distinguish between them at this stage.

It feels too early for me to know exactly which team or practice area I would want to qualify into. For those who were in a similar position, how did you narrow down the firms you applied to without already having a very specific practice-area preference?



@Abbie Whitlock I would love your insight too!

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi @Abbie Whitlock, I have a case study assessment for an upcoming VS, do you have any idea of what this could be and how I can prepare for this more generally? Tysm!!

Hey!

Congratulations on the VS!!

Whilst I'm not too sure on what the specific case study assessment will involve, I have quoted some more general posts I have written about case studies below - I hope they are useful in your preparation!

If you had any specific questions, or if you find out more information about your case study assessment, just shout and I'll help where I can!

Wishing you the best of luck with your VS!

Hello!

Huge congratulations on getting an invite - that's a great achievement, especially in your first cycle!

Case studies are usually designed to test your commercial awareness, logical reasoning, and ability to interpret financial information. Whilst I haven't completed the case study interview at A&O Shearman, here are a few general tips:

• Get comfortable with basic financial concepts: as you mentioned, I would have a look at thinks such as revenue vs. profit, market share, valuation, interest rates, and how macroeconomic factors can impact businesses. I would recommend sites such as Investopedia, as this is what I used when trying to digest all of the basic financial concepts for commercial awareness.
• Practice breaking down information / data logically: you might be given a short brief and asked to make recommendations or discuss implications. Focus on structuring your thoughts clearly - identify the key issue, explain the relevant factors, and conclude with a reasoned judgment. There won't necessarily be one 'right' answer, however, you should make sure to show your thought process and be able to defend your stance if questioned (although make sure you are also flexible if it is an aspect that you hadn't thought of!).
• Stay calm under time pressure: it can feel very overwhelming to be handed a bundle of documents and know that you have to go through it all under the time limit. I would start by reading through all of the documents, and then go back over and start highlighting the important parts and areas that you would want more information. They're more interested in how you think and communicate than whether your answer is 'right'.
• Brush up on A&O Shearman's key practice areas: if this is a finance-based case study, make sure to have a look at their finance, M&A, and restructuring teams. Have a look at recent deals, and see if you can link these to your reasoning in the case study.
• Practice: if you have time before your AC, I would try a few practice case studies online just to get used to analysing data quickly.
• Structure: I would go into the case study interview with a clear structure of how you have analysed the brief and what your conclusions are. How you want to structure this is completely personal to you, but I would make sure that you have a rough idea so that you can go into the interview and discuss all the most important points without missing something out. Some case study interviews have set questions, whilst others will be a conversation on the brief, but going in with a rough idea is a great way to prepare yourself and manage nerves.

There are also some amazing resources on TCLA that I used when I was preparing for the AC that resulted in my TC, so I would absolutely check these out as they were a lifesaver:

• Definitive Guide to Law Firm Case Studies
• Private Equity: A Basic Guide

Overall, I would treat it as a conversation where they're assessing how you approach problems. If you show curiosity, commercial reasoning, and an open-mind - you'll do great!

Wishing you the best of luck, and I'm sure you'll smash it

Hi!

Huge congratulations on receiving the AC invite for Reed Smith!!

Whilst I can't share any specifics, I'm happy to share some general tips for case studies, motivational interviews, and proof reading exercises! Across all of the exercises, I would say that structure and clarity are really key. The assessors are usually less focused on you having the "perfect" answer and more on how you approach the task, prioritise issues, and explain your reasoning as you go along.

For the case study, I would absolutely make good use of the preparation time. What helped me was to read through all of the documents first to get a sense of the overall scenario, and then go back over it to familiarise myself with the finer details. If there is anything that is unclear or confusing, I would try to work it out during the prep time so that, if it comes up in the interview discussion, you are able to explain your understanding confidently (or at least explain your thought process in working it out if you are still not 100% sure!). One piece of advice that my mentor gave me that I found really helpful was to become comfortable with what contracts actually look like in practice - i.e. understanding common clauses, what they mean, and the effect they can have (and whether they are favourable / less favourable to your client). I would also try not to overcomplicate it - this is something I really struggled with at first, but if the answer feels like it is relatively straightforward, I would go with your gut! If the interviewers / assessors require more information, they might be able to ask follow-up questions that you can then address.

For the motivational interview, I would make sure that you have researched the firm (which I'm sure you have!) and can clearly articulate why Reed Smith specifically. Think about how your experiences and interests align with the firm's distinctive features (e.g. its sector focus or initiatives like the Professional SQE Placement Year). For example, I linked my previous vacation scheme experience at a firm with shipping expertise to Reed Smith's expertise in the area, as I could explain how my interest in the area had developed and why Reed Smith's practice stood out to me (compared to the other firm). As with any interview, it also helps to prepare a few thoughtful questions to ask at the end - although if any questions naturally arise due to things discussed in the interview, I'd always encourage you to ask those! Importantly (and I know this is the most annoying advice ever), be yourself! They're assessing your fit to the firm as much as motivation and experience, so I'd try to be friendly and match the atmosphere in the room as this really does go a long way.

For the proofreading exercise, I would encourage you to work slowly and methodically. One practical tip that I found helpful was to use your finger to guide yourself through the text and make note of anything that stands out. While I didn't personally do a proofreading exercise at my Reed Smith AC, I have done similar ones elsewhere and always looked for things such as defined terms (and whether they're capitalised consistently), spelling / grammar, and whether dates and deadlines match throughout the document. These are things that you might not necessarily think to check in a proofreading exercise, but are always important in the legal context!

Above all - stay calm, be structured, and try to explain your thinking clearly wherever you can. It sounds silly to say, but I did really enjoy my Reed Smith AC and I felt that the partners and graduate recruitment team wanted me to do well, rather than trying to catch me out.

I'm sure that you will smash it, and best of luck!

Hey!

I'm not too knowledgeable on these areas myself, so my advice would be quite general! However, when I was starting to learn more about specific areas my starting point is usually Investopedia. For example, I've had a look for posts on Funds and Private Credit and have found:

• Private Credit vs Private Equity: What's the Difference?
• Fund: Definition, How It Works, Types and Ways to Invest
• What Investors Should Know About Investing in Private Debt

If videos are what work best for you, I would definitely have a look at YouTube and search things such as "How private equity works", "What is private credit", "How a fund is structured", etc. When I was preparing for an interview at a PE-focused firm last cycle, I found this video from TCLA really helpful as an introduction: "What Private Equity Lawyers Actually Do? - with Bernie Rivard"

In a case study, they are usually testing:

• Can you spot key risks?
• Do you understand the client's overall commercial objective?
• Can you think commercially and offer practical solutions?

For example, in an M&A case study, you need to think about what the buyer is actually trying to achieve and what are the main risks to highlight in due diligence. For PE, this might be how the fund will exit and what could impact returns from the investment. Lastly, for private credit, you would want to consider what the lender would be worried about (e.g. repayment, security, etc.).

A simple structure that might help you as you approach these exercises is:

1. What is the client's goal?
2. What are the main commercial risks?
3. What would you prioritise as their lawyer?

Try to focus on keeping it logical and commercial - they won't be expecting you to address the technical complexities of an LBO model, but rather to show that you understand the client's objective, can identify the key commercial risks, and can think practically about how a lawyer would help protect the client's position.

I hope that helps!

Hey!

This is completely normal - they are definitely harder to predict, so it can be difficult to prepare for them! The key is remembering that they are not testing whether you "get it right", but whether you can analyse the case study in a structured and commercial way.

I wouldn't explicitly use the SWOT/PESTLE framework when answering, but instead use them as mental checklists to ensure that you cover everything.

WIth SWOT, it might help to quickly think:

• What are the client's key strengths and weaknesses?
• Where is the main opportunity in the scenario?
• What is the biggest threat (e.g. regulatory, financial, reputational)?

Then, I would focus on 2-3 of the most material points and prioritise - sometimes it doesn't make sense to list absolutely everything.

With PESTLE, I would use it to ensure that you haven't missed a big external factor (e.g. economic pressure, regulatory change, tech disruption). You won't necessarily need every category if it is not relevant. I'd say that the partners are looking to see the following:

• Can you identify the core commercial issue(s)?
• Can you prioritise risks?
• Can you give balanced advice?
• Do you understand how a lawyer adds value in a transaction?

You might not be able to give a definitive answer if there are areas that you would need further information, but it always helps to make a decisive answer where you can - even if you added a caveat of "...but this would depend on further information on X".

I hope that assists!

H

Hello!

No worries at all - I can't share too many specifics, but I'm happy to share some general advice that is hopefully useful!

From my experience with the Travers Smith vacation scheme, I'd say that it is best to prepare in the same way that you would for most case study exercises generally.

I would focus on getting comfortable with quickly analysing large volumes of information or picking out the key points, risks, opportunities, or issues that actually need to be addressed, rather than getting lost in the smaller details. It helps to cover most (if not all) of the issues that arise, but it is important to prioritise the most pressing issues and analyse those in more detail. I would also try to keep a client-centred perspective in mind when you are reading through the documents and think about what matters most from a commercial point of view.

I'd also recommend looking at different types of document formats/structures beforehand and getting a feel for how you would structure your answer clearly and logically, so that you can communicate your points in a way that is easy to follow under time pressure. A well-structured answer will make it much easier for the assessor to follow your reasoning, and ensures that your key points and recommendations come across clearly under the time pressure.

Overall, it is often more about your approach and structure rather than any specific technical knowledge. I'd therefore make sure that you feel comfortable with approaching the task under time pressure, so that you can stay calm, organised, and still produce a clear and well-structured recommendation even when the information feels quite overwhelming.

I have also quoted below some previous posts that I have made on case studies - I hope they are useful!

Wishing you the best of luck - I'm sure you'll smash it!!

 

[corplawperson23]

Hi everyone! I attended a vacation scheme recently, and I'm a little anxious. I received positive praise on my work, which was consistently described as 'trainee level' from 2 directors and my trainee buddy. However, I did fairly badly in the final stage interview that took place during the week. E.g., I got asked follow-ups on my points and was unable to answer, or did answer incorrectly, and for other answers, it felt like I was waffling. I got set a lot of work during the week and had a deadline right before my midday interview, and so I just wasn't in the right headspace. Is it likely that the interview could supersede my work feedback?

 

[Abbie Whitlock]

Hi everyone — I’m starting to think about which firms to target in the next application cycle and would really appreciate any advice on narrowing down a list.

At the moment, I’m particularly drawn to US firms because I like the idea of learning more “on the job”, and I’m much more interested in transactional rather than contentious work. However, lots of US firms have strong transactional practices across so many different areas, so I’m struggling to work out how to distinguish between them at this stage.

It feels too early for me to know exactly which team or practice area I would want to qualify into. For those who were in a similar position, how did you narrow down the firms you applied to without already having a very specific practice-area preference?



@Abbie Whitlock I would love your insight too!

Hey!

I think it is completely normal to not know exactly which practice area you want to do yet - I definitely didn't (+ still don't), and I wouldn't let that stop you.

One thing that helped me narrow firms down was looking less at "which exact team do I want?" and more at the range of opportunities each firm gives you once you are there. If you think you'd enjoy lots of different things, breadth can be a really useful differentiator.

For example, one reason I applied to Reed Smith was because of the variety of seats available - they still have strong corporate/finance options, but also areas like entertainment and shipping which are more unusual. I liked the idea that I could try out lots of different directions and alter my seat choices if I tried an area and didn't like the style/type of work.

Other things I would look at are training style (especially if you are keen to learn on the job), seat structure (i.e. traditional, or more like Jones Day who have a non-rotational TC), team size, responsibility levels, and culture. Those differences can sometimes matter more than trying to commit to a specific practice area too early, particularly at US firms who often do very similar practice areas.

If you know that you enjoy transactional work and like the idea of learning on the job, but you just aren't sure exactly where within transactional yet, I think that can be a valid reason to lean towards firms with broader seat options. You can then use other factors that matter to you in a TC (e.g. training style, international exposure, etc.) to narrow the list down, rather than feeling like you need to have your qualification area planned already.

It's a tricky thing to plan, as you never really know what a practice area is going to be like until you actually experience it. I often used things like Forage programmes and online insights/blogs to get a feel for what different areas did, which I found useful.

Wishing you the best of luck - it's a great sign that you are planning your application cycle this thoughtfully!