Why have you applied to Morgan Lewis? What do you think are the skills and attributes you possess that distinguish you from other applicants?

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Morgan Lewis) is globally renowned for the services provided to clients. The small trainee intake ensures more responsibility, ‘hands on training’, and enables the strengthening of personal relationships. This provides greater opportunity to learn as well as make a personal contribution to the success of the firm.

[Feedback: This question is a little trickier than the standard ‘why this firm’ question as it combines ‘why this firm’ and ‘why you’. Whenever law firms combine multiple questions into one, we recommend you split your answer proportionally, covering each part of the question equally. Furthermore, as a quick aside, you do not need to spell out the firm’s name and then abbreviate it if and only if the firm has already used the abbreviation in the question.

The candidate has correctly identified a key aspect of the firm’s training: a smaller trainee intake of approximately eight trainees. However, small trainee intakes are quite common amongst many law firms – for example, Davis Polk takes four, Akin Gump takes six, and Kirkland & Ellis takes ten. Hence, as seen in the candidate’s answer, the explanation of this example of a small trainee intake is a little vague and nonspecific. 

Training is naturally a key part of being at a law firm, but the way this question is structured suggests that a deeper discussion of the firm’s work would be better. Alternatively, if you do want to talk about Morgan Lewis’ training – consider thinking a little broader than the intake. For example, consider their headcount in London and how that might impact responsibility and learning, or find some unique elements of their training contract (perhaps they run special internal teaching sessions, etc.).]

The firm’s leading finance practice in London has earned a reputation for an exceptional ability to provide the highest standard of advice. Morgan Lewis advised We Soda Ltd. on a $1.66b loan facility provided by a consortium of international lenders. We Soda Ltd. is the world’s largest soda ash producer, indicating the magnitude of work Morgan Lewis is involved in. Having already experienced legal work from a financial perspective during an internship at Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets (LBCM), this core capability of Morgan Lewis is of importance as I wish to advance knowledge in this area.

[Feedback: The candidate now pivots to a discussion of the firm’s work. The first half of the paragraph is good: the candidate correctly identifies Morgan Lewis’ leading practice area and uses a deal to evidence their claim. The candidate has demonstrated great research, and an interest in the firm and its work.

The second half of the answer could be improved. This part only highlights the candidate’s work experience without actually linking it back to what they have just discussed regarding Morgan Lewis’ work. The candidate would have been better placed to identify some financial legal work that they completed at LBCM and then link that back to the work that Morgan Lewis does.

Nevertheless, bringing up LBCM as evidence for ‘why firm’ to then use the example to pivot to ‘why me’ (as in the next paragraph) is an excellent and ingenious tactic as it maintains the answer’s flow and cohesion. If you wish to employ a similar tactic in your answers, make sure that you do not repeat yourself. Using the same example is always something we would advise against just because it is too easy for a candidate to repeat themselves. However, we would just highlight that this rule can be broken in exceptional circumstances and to great effect.

As the only intern in the legal department of LBCM, I developed strong analytical skills in a financial setting. Several presentations I produced during the internship were provided to clients of the bank, ensuring that I paid close attention to detail and worked successfully under pressure. A strong lawyer should be orally articulate and maintain strong communication with clients and colleagues, skills I have evidenced through conducting mock interviews for Oxbridge law applicants. Being able to adapt communication style is vital as a solicitor.  Showing tenacity and perseverance to achieve the highest standard of work serves to distinguish me from other candidates.

[Feedback: This answer correctly highlights many competencies that law firms are looking for including analytical skills, attention to detail, working under pressure/resilience/perseverance, and communication. Additionally, the candidate evidences these competencies with personal examples and adds an extra one to avoid excessively belabouring the LBCM example.

To improve this answer, we would recommend employing the PEE/AL framework: point, evidence, explanation, link. For example:

• Point: A lawyer needs strong oral and written communication skills.
• Evidence: Giving mock Oxbridge interviews to non-native English speakers.
• Explanation: [Explain how a difficult time/difficult scenario required the candidate to bring their communication skills to the fore to solve the issue].
• Link: As a trainee solicitor, I will employ my communication skills to [mention different kinds of work that a trainee solicitor does that requires strong communication skills].

Furthermore, the candidate sometimes employs some clunky phrasing: ‘Several presentations I produced […], ensuring that I paid close attention to detail […]’. This could have been rewritten to improve clarity of argument like, for example, ‘I produced several presentations for the bank’s clients. To produce high quality work for these clients, I worked accurately but quickly under the pressure of tight deadlines of [insert time frame here]. Specifically, I paid close attention to detail to [insert specific aspect of work here] to ensure that the clients always got the greatest benefit out of my work’.]

Who are our main competitors and specifically demonstrate how we differentiate from the firms you name.

As it relates to international, mid-sized firms, Pinsent Masons and Eversheds Sutherland pose as direct competitors to Trowers & Hamlins’ reputable global practice. However, what differentiates Trowers & Hamlins is their overall approach to the real economy.

[Feedback: Straight away, the candidate clearly identifies two firms as Trowers & Hamlins’ main competitors and justifies their view in terms of the firms’ respective profiles and sizes (i.e., “international, mid-sized firms”). Other aspects to take into consideration in attempting to identify a firm’s competitors include its strongest practice areas, its presence throughout the United Kingdom and abroad, as well as its heritage (e.g., whether it is a US firm, a Silver Circle firm, etc.). The candidate also summarises their view as to why Trowers & Hamlins stands out from its main competitors, enabling the reader to anticipate and follow their subsequent argument with relative ease. To improve the readability of this paragraph, the candidate could have phrased their thoughts in a less convoluted manner by closely mirroring the wording of the prompt and by using simple syntax (e.g., “As fellow international mid-size firms, Pinsent Masons and Eversheds Sutherland are Trowers & Hamlins’ main competitors”). To showcase their commercial awareness, the candidate could have succinctly explained their understanding of the “real economy” and contrasted it with the so-called “financial economy”.]

The firm has carved out a niche where commerce, communities and culture intersect. This means, unlike its competitors, having as much of an impact on the public sector as in the private sector. The firm's top-ranked real estate practice is comprised of band-one social housing and local government teams that have contributed to the regeneration of communities. For example, the firm advised Bath and North East Somerset Council on a £160 million regeneration project of Bath Quays North that provides 200,000 square feet of office space, 1,900 new jobs and over 70 new houses. A positive development for the local economy influenced by Trowers & Hamlins commitment to, and expertise in, the real economy.

[Feedback: The candidate correctly states that, unlike its main competitors, Trowers & Hamlins undertakes impactful, non-commoditised real estate projects within both the private sphere and the public sphere. What makes this answer particularly effective is the fact that the candidate provides an example of such a project, which does not only lend credibility to their argument, but also showcases their research into the firm. Echoing the comment made in relation to the readability of the previous paragraph, the candidate could have phrased their thoughts in a less convoluted manner by using simple syntax (e.g., “Unlike its competitors, Trowers & Hamlins’ work has as much of a positive impact within the public sphere as it does within the private sphere, given its commitment to and expertise in the real economy”).]

Furthermore, its public sector presence together with its robust commercial property teams, highlighted by its Middle East investment practice, has lifted the firm to the top in terms of proportion of firm-wide revenue property represents. Recent research suggests that there is a 60% increase of Middle East investment into prime UK areas. This is an opportunity in which the firm can introduce its Middle Eastern clients to the abundant opportunities in UK real estate. Whilst its competitors focus on the private sphere, the firm's forward-thinking approach in the both sectors will increasingly prove advantageous as demand in both grows.

[Feedback: The candidate advances their argument by highlighting the unique opportunities presented by Trowers & Hamlins’ significant presence within the Middle East against the backdrop of current market trends (i.e., increased “Middle East investment into prime UK areas”); in doing so, they showcase both their commercial awareness and their research into the firm. Notably, the candidate guides the reader through each step of their thought process, creating a cohesive line of argumentation and showcasing their critical thinking abilities. Nonetheless, the comments made in relation to the readability of the previous paragraphs continue to be relevant, especially because some of the sentences do not make sense.]

Which of our current clients would you be most excited to work with and why? How could you add value to the relationship as a Trainee Solicitor?

I would be interested in working with RES, the world's largest independent renewable energy company, as renewable energy is a growing industry with an exciting future. RES operates on both centralised and distributed energy solutions, working on an integrated basis to provide energy responsibly whilst also remaining a pioneer within the sector. As a company that is striving to grow its business and research and develop sustainable technology simultaneously, RES is a great match for Womble Bond Dickinson's core values of Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship.

[Feedback:  Similar to the previous prompt, we would recommend breaking down your answer into multiple parts, with each part answering one question:

1. What client would you want to work with and why?

2. What skills and experience could you bring to the table as a trainee solicitor, specifically in relation to working with the said client?

In this first paragraph, the candidate states the client they would like to work for and gives some indication as to why. The candidate’s answer should be commended for including a short introduction to the client. You should be aware that the recruiter is likely to be unaware of all the clients the firm works with; therefore, you should write your answers as if the recruiter has no prior knowledge. Furthermore, by describing and explaining what the client’s work is, you will also showcase your research and knowledge to the recruiter.

The candidate also explains why the client is a good fit for the firm. This is not wholly necessary, as it does not directly answer the question; it does not explain why the candidate wants to work with the firm, nor does it explain how the candidate could add value. Nevertheless, the statement does show some knowledge about the firm and the client. Our advice would be to check each of your sentences for relevancy upon proofreading your work. You should easily be able to say how each of your sentences answers the question or relates to a larger argument that addresses the question. If you need to make some logical leaps to identify your sentence’s purpose, you may wish to consider rewriting it to be more explicit.

To improve this answer further, the candidate could have gone into some more detail as to why they are excited to work with the client. Whilst the candidate states that ‘renewable energy is a growing industry with an exciting future’, they fail to explain why it is exciting to them personally. Here, it would have been good to read about the candidate’s knowledge or expertise with respect to the renewable energy industry. You must remember that the recruiter does not just want to read a series of statements; they want to see evidence of your interests so that they know your statements are authentic and they understand the degree to which you are actually interested.]

As an ambitious self-starter I am motivated by the idea of working towards the completion of ambitious projects or working on complex problems. My role as Media and Publicity Convenor of the [redacted] University Law Society involves keeping up with membership numbers and organising events such as the second-hand book sale and the law ball for over 500 people. I must also practice effective teamwork skills, working with my fellow committee members to allocate roles according to each person's strengths and specialities. The society hosts on average one event each fortnight during the university semester, and so my role on the committee has allowed me to balance working towards project deadlines whilst keeping on top of my academic deadlines as part of my LLB. I believe I would effectively employ these skills when working within Womble Bond Dickinson's energy and natural resources and power and renewables team. Both of these teams are driven by people with diverse expertise, notably Chris Towner who has experience advising the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I would relish the opportunity to be part of and learn from teams such as this.

[Feedback:  In this section, the candidate turns their attention to how they would add value to the relationship between RES and Womble Bond Dickinson. Specifically, the candidate homes in on a variety of competencies, notably, motivation and organisation. The candidate leads with a discussion of a personal example, which they use to highlight said competencies. This is a good approach which follows the PEEL structure. The candidate first introduces the main competency or trait before going into an example which demonstrates that they do indeed have such a trait. The candidate explains their example, before attempting to link it back to the question at hand.

The candidate should be commended, not only for their structure but also for their inclusion of specific details. You should note how the candidate incorporates specific facts and statistics into their answer. They mention the name of their role, the kind of sale they organised, and how many individuals they organised the law ball for. Although these details may seem mundane or obvious, they are essential for the answer’s success. Vague responses are often treated with suspicion by recruiters. The recruiter is likely to doubt the authenticity of such an answer, or simply be unable to come to any meaningful judgement. If any candidate could have written your answer, then it is too vague and requires more specific detail.

The main point of improvement for this section centres around the candidate’s link back to the question. Whilst the candidate does make some attempt to address how they would employ their mentioned skills in the role, they do not directly answer the question. The prompt asks you to consider ‘[h]ow could you add value to the relationship’ between the firm and your chosen client. Therefore, it is imperative to discuss the employment of your skills in the context of working with the client. Unfortunately, in this paragraph, the candidate does not mention RES (their chosen client) and, therefore, is not properly answering the question.

Furthermore, the candidate writes that they would use their skills when working with a particular team in the firm. They then go into some detail about the expertise held by a particular lawyer. However, the candidate does not explain how they would employ their skills in the role. This question is testing your knowledge of what a trainee solicitor does. Therefore, it is essential that you describe how you would employ your skills. For example, if you have mentioned your interpersonal skills, you may want to explain how you would use said skills in the context of a client meeting or correspondence. You should remember that the recruiter is fully aware of what skills trainee solicitors need to have; what they want to read about is what skills you claim to have and how you would apply them in situ.]

In the fight against climate change, it is becoming clear that renewable industry is the future of energy and so it is necessary to build particularly robust, lasting relationships with such clients. I have developed a number of interpersonal and communicative skills as part of my customer facing hospitality role at Bread Meats Bread [redacted city]. I enjoy meeting customers of different nationalities and professions and I especially take pleasure in making time to ensure that their experience at the restaurant is positive and welcoming. This requires that I am detail-orientated with regard to food preferences and dietary requirements and that their needs are met within a reasonable time period. I thrive on building a rapport with customers in the short space of time I spend with them. I would take the opportunities during a traineeship with Womble Bond Dickinson to add to this skill set whilst building relationships with interesting clients such as RES in a similar manner. As RES is one of Womble Bond Dickinson's long standing clients, it would be particularly rewarding to build on this lasting relationship as well as working on complex transactions similar to that of the sale of Craiggore Wind Farm.

[Feedback: In this paragraph, the candidate focuses on their interpersonal and communication skills. The candidate should be commended for immediately linking the need to build lasting relationships with clients and the need for good communication skills. By stating this connection right from the start, the candidate contextualises their answer with the recruiter knowing the importance of the candidate’s claimed skills straightaway.

Similar to the above paragraph, the candidate employs a good structure. They go into a personal example which showcases their skills in practice, before attempting to link their discussion back to the firm and the relationship with RES. You should also note how the candidate attempts to incorporate specific detail into their answer whenever possible, for instance by discussing the clients’ ‘food preferences and dietary requirements’ and the ‘Craiggore Wind Farm’ transaction. These flecks of detail provide some colour to the answer, lend it credence and make it more engaging.

To improve this answer, much like the above paragraph, the candidate needed to be more specific with respect to how they would employ their interpersonal and communication skills in the role. The candidate writes that ‘it would be particularly rewarding to build on this lasting relationship as well as working on complex transactions similar to that of the sale of Craiggore Wind Farm’. Whilst this may be the case, the candidate needed to have gone into more detail concerning how they would build on the relationship. You should remember that the question asks you to reflect on how you would contribute to the relationship as a trainee solicitor. Therefore, to draft an optimal answer, you must contextualise your answer and display an awareness of what is expected of a trainee solicitor (for example, you will not be permitted to call the client whenever you want).]

Furthermore, my workplace is often fast-paced and unpredictable, and so I have become adaptable to the changing working environment. It is necessary that my colleagues and I work as a team to effectively manage difficult situations. I believe that the adaptability that I have developed would be of great use to the relationship between Womble Bond Dickinson and RES. For example, as a response to the current climate emergency, RES has outlined their four sustainability principles of Business, Reputation, Environment and Social, so that they can maximise the environmental benefit of each of their projects whilst promoting the continued growth of the company and maintaining their excellent short-term performance.

Such initiatives require expert, tailored advice which will necessarily have to adapt to the ever-evolving commercial and global situation. I believe I possess the resilience and motivation necessary to pursue a career in such a fast-paced, intellectually demanding environment.

[Feedback: The candidate moves on to discussing their competency of adaptability. However, unlike in the previous paragraphs, the candidate chooses to focus on the client. The candidate’s answer should be commended for including a good amount of research and detail concerning their chosen client. This shows the recruiter that they have a genuine interest in the client and have gone out of their way to understand the client’s needs.

Furthermore, this is the first time in the candidate’s answer that the candidate has directly addressed ‘the relationship between Womble Bond Dickinson and RES’. When you draft your answers, you should always make sure to refer back to the question by using the prompt’s wording. Although this may seem basic, it is the only certain way to have the recruiter note that you have directly addressed the question. Additionally, by using the prompt’s wording, you will also force yourself to ensure that you craft a response that fully answers the question.

Although the candidate has done well to home in on the client, they could have better developed their argument with respect to how they would contribute to the relationship. The candidate links their answer back to the question by stating that ‘[s]uch initiatives require expert, tailored advice which will necessarily have to adapt to the ever-evolving commercial and global situation. I believe I possess the resilience and motivation necessary to pursue a career in such a fast-paced, intellectually demanding environment’.

Whilst this sounds strong, the candidate fails to explain how, as a trainee solicitor, they would contribute to the relationship. Although they indicate that they would have the adaptability required to advise the client, the candidate should have given one or two specific examples of how they envisage giving such advice (or adapting as necessary) in the role of a trainee solicitor. If you are unsure as to what a trainee solicitor does at Womble Bond Dickinson on a daily basis, you may consider reaching out to the firm’s trainees on LinkedIn. You should remember that trainees at different firms are given different levels of responsibility; therefore, if possible, you should learn about what tasks a trainee has at the firm you are applying to (rather than other firms).]

I also have a great interest in business and innovation and I believe working as a trainee solicitor with Womble Bond Dickinson would give me the opportunity to work closely with exciting businesses such as RES to provide advice beyond the law. There has never been a time where close cooperation between energy companies and law firms has been so greatly required, and so the opportunity to carry out a secondment with a client such as RES interests me greatly. Additionally, as a transatlantic firm that regularly works on multijurisdictional transactions, Womble Bond Dickinson would be an excellent firm to train in with a distinctively wide range of opportunities. During my Erasmus+ language year abroad in Strasbourg, France, I studied courses such as Environmental Law from the perspective of the French jurisdiction. I therefore have knowledge of the legal implications of environmental issues with regard to multiple legal systems and so I believe I am well placed to advise a globally operating client such as RES. Furthermore, my language skills would allow me to strengthen relationships with international clients as I am able to communicate effectively in both English and French.

Feedback: This paragraph covers several points:

1. the candidate’s interest in business and innovation;

2. the importance of a closeness of connection between energy companies and law firms;

3. the opportunity of a secondment at RES;

4. Womble Bond Dickinson’s multijurisdictional work; and

5. the candidate’s Erasmus+ experience and their language skills.

Overall, the candidate makes several salient points. Unlike the previous paragraphs, the candidate changes their structure and focuses on several areas rather than just one. What is especially good is the candidate’s discussion of their Erasmus+ experience and their language skills. This discussion demonstrates the candidate’s interest in international affairs and their capability with dealing with foreign cultures and work. You must remember that language skills, whilst impressive, do not prove that you are well-suited for international work. You should always try to involve some additional experience alongside your language skills to demonstrate this. Furthermore, if possible, you should state what languages you speak (and to what CEFR level, for example, B1 (intermediate)).

The candidate also attempts to link their international experience with the firm’s structure, citing Womble Bond Dickinson’s multijurisdictional transactions and their transatlantic nature. Whilst this is not incorrect, it is relatively generic. Every top commercial law firm in England will work on multijurisdictional matters. Whilst it is true that some firms will not have an office in the U.S., they are likely to have one in South America, or, at the very least, work with local firms on American matters. Therefore, the traits the candidate cites concerning Womble Bond Dickinson are not particularly unique. To improve their answer, the candidate could have cited a particular deal that the firm advised RES on which involved multiple jurisdictions. The candidate could then have explained how they, with their international experience and language skills, could have assisted on the deal in the capacity of a trainee solicitor.

You should remember that it is not sufficient to claim merely that you could contribute to the relationship or would be able to advise the client. You should show the recruiter that this is the case, rather than telling them. You can show the recruiter by explaining what you would do as a trainee given the opportunity to work with the client, specifically, how you would employ the skills that you have mentioned.

Finally, the candidate’s structure could have been improved. In this section, the candidate covers several points which is quite disorientating for the reader. You will always be better off sticking to one clear point and arguing that point throughout your answer. You must remember that the recruiter is unlikely to read your answer twice; if they do not understand what you are trying to communicate, they may just reject your application and move on. These questions and prompts do not just test your knowledge of particular areas, they also test you on your powers of articulation and written communication. Therefore, it is vital you stick to a clear structure, such as the PEEL format, to ensure that you craft a clear, persuasive argument that the recruiter can follow and appreciate.]    

What attracts you to a career at Weil?

Firstly, I am attracted to a career at Weil due to the firm’s growing presence in the Chinese markets. As China has one of the largest GDP growth rates, currently standing at 6.9%, it is clear that Weil actively seeks opportunities for growth. In addition to being named a “leading firm for corporate M&A in the Asian Pacific Regions,” Weil has been able to capitalise on global economic trends by advising clients on technology transactions. As head organiser of [retracted] emerging markets forum, I frequently liaise with investors to analyse how consumer trends effect EM economies. Therefore, I am keen to train at Weil to further develop my interests in capital growth.

[Feedback: This is an unusual way to begin an application to Weil’s London office. The focus on Asian markets is a good secondary reason to join Weil but should not be a primary driver. After all, a trainee in London will be doing mostly European work and the Asian work will be done by the firm’s Asian offices. “Effect” in this instance should also be replaced by “affect”.

Nevertheless, the paragraph successfully shows research (on China and Weil’s awards in the region), a personal angle backed up by work experience to demonstrate why that appeals and then ties it back to Weil to finish the paragraph. The paragraph is therefore structurally sound.]

Furthermore, from my conversation with Charles Hadley, I became attracted to firm’s leading PE and restructuring practices: Weil advising on 6/7 of the largest US bankruptcies is testament to this. Also, the current advent of negative interest rates and the availability of cheap debt has led to PE firms amassing over $1tn of “dry powder”, in which Weil has advised on 8/10 of the largest global PE funds. Therefore, I am attracted to a career at Weil as it is a well-hedged firm that guarantees a constant workload in times of both economic downturn and economic prosperity.

[Feedback: This section does a good job of noting a key area of Weil’s business that appeals and linking that to Weil’s track record along with global macroeconomic conditions. The “dry powder” point is an especially good one and shows that the candidate understands the nature of the PE market today. We agree that Weil is very well hedged to succeed in times good and bad with their cyclical focus. 

This paragraph would have been better as the opening paragraph, as Weil’s PE/restructuring practices in London are stellar and worth highlighting immediately. The “dry powder” point also needs clarification: has Weil “advised on 9/10 of the largest global PE funds” transactions (i.e. M&A) or fundraisings (i.e. Funds team)? This is an important distinction and it’s not entirely clear.

The candidate should also be cautious with the phrasing on Weil being “well-hedged”. While a true statement, it’s probably better to say that Weil is strategically positioning itself with a cyclical focus to thrive in growth and recessionary periods, instead of saying that you are thrilled to have a “constant workload”. There are also a couple of typos and it should be “attracted to the firm’s leading…”; “bankruptcies is a testament...”. These typos combined with the first paragraph typo could be grounds for rejection so make sure you are careful when proofreading your work.]

Additionally, I am attracted to a career at Weil due to the firm’s small trainee intake of 15. This leads to greater responsibility and client exposure at an early stage. From my conversation with James Harvey, I was attracted to the fact that Weil benefits from a lack of bureaucracy.

[Feedback: This paragraph succinctly explains the importance of a small trainee intake and shows that the candidate has researched the Weil intake size, which is great. It would be improved by removing or adding more detail to the James Harvey discussion as that feels like ‘name dropping’ without going into how Weil avoids bureaucracy or why they do so. “Attracted” is also repeated and it’s better to vary your word selection as much as possible.]

Why is Addleshaw Goddard your chosen firm? (approx. 300 words max)

I am attracted to a firm that is adaptive to the market and provides a unique client service. The firm has gained a reputation of embracing technology to solve client problems as part of the firm's AG Intelligent Delivery project. Therefore, Addleshaw Goddard is ahead of its competitors, by investing in technology, showing that it is an exciting time to be with the firm.

[Feedback: This is a classic ‘why firm?’ question. Much like a response to ‘why law?’, this question demands an answer with PEEL structured paragraphs. For a 250 or 300-word answer, we would recommend sticking to two to three paragraphs. Your focus should be on the firm’s work, training, and culture, in descending order of priority. Therefore, if you choose to write two paragraphs, focus on the firm’s work and training.

In this first paragraph, the candidate discusses the firm’s business strategy and technology. The candidate does well to mention a firm-specific piece of evidence: the AG Intelligent Delivery project. When you write your answers, you need to evidence that is unique to the firm. If you fail to do so, you risk your answer being applicable to a plethora of other law firms. This is problematic as the recruiter wants to read about why you want to join this firm in particular, not, potentially, a whole host of others.

Furthermore, you should note that the candidate attempts to explain why they are attracted to the firm. This may seem obvious; however, many candidates forget to personalise their responses. The recruiter does not want to read about the firm in abstraction. Arguably, the recruiter already knows all of the good things about the firm. What they really want to learn about is what you think are the most important traits that the firm has and why they matter to you personally. Therefore, you should ensure you employ the first-person pronoun (‘I’) when writing your answers. You should be writing about your opinions and taking ownership of your argument. By doing so, you will impress upon the recruiter the importance of the firm’s traits you have chosen to discuss with you in particular.

To improve this paragraph, the candidate needed to have gone into substantially more detail with respect to their argument. As it stands, the candidate’s answer appears to be quite vague. Crucially, the candidate does not go into any detail as to why they are ‘attracted to a firm that is adaptive to the market and provides a unique client service’. Although they make such a claim, and their example perhaps evidences the fact that the firm does have such traits, the candidate does not properly explain why those traits matter to them. Indeed, they only make the broad claim at the end of their answer that ‘it is an exciting time to be with the firm’.

When you write your answers, you should continually ask yourself, ‘why?’. When you make a claim about the firm or about yourself, you should consider why it is that the claim is indeed the case. You must then incorporate some substantiating examples or explanations in your answer to elucidate why your claim is, in fact, true. For instance, the candidate writes that the firm is ahead of its competitors in virtue of its investment in technology. But why this that claim true? The candidate needed to have provided accompanying examples and explanations concerning what they mean by ‘technology’ and how exactly it gives the firm a competitive edge. You must remember that the recruiter will not make your argument for you. Although it may seem obvious to you, the recruiter will only judge what you have written and will refrain from making inferences. Therefore, the onus is on you to write out, explicitly, every step of your argument and substantiate it accordingly.]

The culture of Addleshaw Goddard is friendly and there is an open plan office regime to break down barriers. This support demonstrates why I want to train with Addleshaw Goddard, as I want to be in a positive environment, where I can seek guidance freely. The international nature of the firm is highly appealing to me due to my language skills.

[Feedback: This paragraph has two points. The first concerns the firm’s culture and its friendliness, whilst the second concerns the international nature of the firm.

Culture is a very challenging topic of discussion. Many candidates will mention a firm’s culture but provide little to no specific evidence to substantiate their claims. In this instance, the candidate mentions the firm’s friendly culture and cites the firm’s open plan office as evidence of this. The candidate’s reasoning is technically correct: if a firm has an open plan office, it is more likely that individuals are happier to work together and help others as the lack of physical boundaries makes such behaviour easier.

Nevertheless, having an open plan office is but one indication (but not necessarily proof) of a firm’s purported friendly culture. Furthermore, many firms have open-plan or ‘doorless’ offices. Hence, the candidate’s example is not tailored to the firm and means their argument could apply to others. Finally, every firm will claim to be friendly. If that is what the candidate is after, then, if all law firms are to be taken at their word, the candidate’s argument as to why they are attracted to Addleshaw Goddard could apply to virtually every law firm.

To improve this answer, the candidate needed to have discussed something that was particular to the firm in question, rather than something that is shared by many other firms. By choosing to cite a friendly culture and an open plan office, the candidate risks their answer being applicable to other firms, not just Addleshaw Goddard. Furthermore, the candidate does not provide any explanation as to why they want to be ‘in a positive environment, where [they] can seek guidance freely’. Although this may seem like something that everyone should want, the candidate needed to have explained why it would matter to them personally (for example, by referencing how it would help them in the role or how they would take advantage of it).

The candidate ends the paragraph by making a point about the firm’s ‘international nature’. The candidate references their language skills; however, they do not go into any detail as to what languages they can speak and their proficiency. Being able to speak multiple languages is a great asset which you should mention on your application forms. However, it is important that you are clear as to what languages you can speak and to what level.

Additionally, the candidate references the firm’s ‘international nature’. All top commercial law firms will have an international dimension, whether that be international clients or international offices. Therefore, this is not unique to Addleshaw Goddard. Furthermore, the candidate does not explain how their language skills would be useful given the firm’s international work. You should observe how, by incorporating more than one point into a paragraph, the candidate’s response becomes more superficial as they do not have the appropriate structure or space to expound on their claims.]

Addleshaw Goddard has repeatedly been in the Times Top 50 Employers for Women. This demonstrates that it encourages a work life balance and heavily supports its people. This is exactly the firm I want to progress my career with, as an individual who is personally affected by these initiatives.

[Feedback: This paragraph focuses on a particular ranking the firm has received. The candidate does well to include firm-specific information in their answer. Referencing a firm’s awards, rankings, and initiatives is a great way for you to show the recruiter the extent of your research and your commitment to joining the firm. Naturally, the inclusion of such examples also lends your answer credence and makes it more persuasive.

Unfortunately, this paragraph suffers from the same issues as the one above. The section is underdeveloped and does not forward a strong argument. The candidate begins well by citing the Times Top 50 Employers for Women. However, the following sentence does not provide a sufficient explanation. Just because the firm has achieved such a ranking does not automatically necessitate that ‘it encourages a work[-]life balance and heavily supports its people’. The candidate needed to explain how the ranking evidences their claims about the firm.

Furthermore, the candidate provides a weak link in their final sentence. The candidate claims that the firm’s initiatives personally affect them. However, they do not state what these initiatives are. Additionally, they do not explain how these initiatives would affect them. Finally, the candidate does not explain why these initiatives personally matter to them. Just because they would affect the candidate does not mean that they are desirable on a personal level.

Hence, the candidate needed to provide substantially more explanation and evidence for all of their claims and provide a stronger link at the end of the paragraph.]

Addleshaw Goddard's sector-based approach is unique, and this focus means that the firm has developed a strategy which is targeted to clients within these sectors.Not only does this mean that clients' work is completed by lawyers with high levels of experience, but it also means I will be learning from lawyers who are experts in their field.

[Feedback: The above two paragraphs seem to be intended to be read together and could easily be combined into one. When you write your answers, we would recommend avoiding short one or two-sentence paragraphs. It is unlikely that you will be able to go into sufficient detail in such paragraphs; therefore, by sticking to longer sections, your answer will flow better and contain the requisite detail.

The candidate turns their focus to the firm’s sector-based approach. The candidate claims that this approach is better for clients and will allow them to learn from lawyers who are experts in those sectors. These are all correct points and are certainly the basis for an answer. However, the response requires some more development.

Importantly, the first statement by the candidate that ‘Addleshaw Goddard's sector-based approach is unique’ is not technically correct. Many law firms employ a sector-based approach, including, for example, Bird & Bird, HFW, and Taylor Wessing. Whilst you may certainly bring up the firm’s sector-based approach as something that is attractive, you should be aware that this approach is shared by many other firms. Hence, you should focus on the specific sectors that the firm specialises in and why those sectors interest you (as that is what will differentiate the firm from others and explain why you want to apply to this firm in particular).

Furthermore, the candidate then goes on to claim that the approach would allow them to learn ‘from lawyers who are experts in their field’. Whilst this may be true, the candidate needed to explain why this is important to them. You must remember to explain why the firm’s traits matter to you on a personal basis.

Do not forget to include evidence for this as well – you cannot simply claim that this does, in fact, matter to you. You should cite previous experiences to evidence the authenticity of your claims about yourself. The recruiter does not know you personally and is also aware that some candidates may embellish the truth or invent claims about themselves. Hence, you must give the recruiter sufficient evidence for any claim you make about yourself to show them that you are the genuine article.]

I am interested in Addleshaw Goddard as it gives back to its communities and environment and the firm's CSR objective of Unlocking Young Potential demonstrates this. Following on from my CSR work, as the leader of TaxAid charity, this is something I would be keen to get involved in.

[Feedback: This final section discusses the firm’s CSR work. The candidate does well in employing some specific examples concerning both the firm and themselves. The candidate substantiates their claim about the firm by citing the firm’s ‘Unlocking Young Potential’ objective. Furthermore, the candidate justifies their attraction to the firm on the basis of their claim by citing their previous work as ‘the leader of TaxAid charity’. You should note how the candidate aligns their interests with the firm’s and, crucially, provides some specific evidence to prove that there is such an alignment.

Like many of the above paragraphs, this section is too short. Ideally, the candidate needed to have explained why CSR matters to them. Though some personal evidence of prior CSR work does help them, this is not a substitute for a full explanation. Furthermore, the candidate could have explained how they would get involved in Addleshaw Goddard’s CSR work.

You should remember that the firm wants to hire proactive trainees. Hence, when you state that you want to get involved with something at the firm (be it a training and development programme, CSR initiative, or something else), you should give some explanation as to how you would look to get involved. By doing so, your answer will be more persuasive and convince the recruiter that you are genuinely interested in getting involved in such activities (rather than just paying them lip service).]

If you were an AG lawyer, recommending the firm to a potential new client what would you describe as our most unique selling points? (approx. 300 words max)

Addleshaw Goddard is an innovative firm, demonstrated by the award of the 7th Most Innovative Law Firm in Europe at the FT Most Innovative Lawyers. The firm is pioneering new ways of delivering legal services to assist clients with the commercial challenges they face.

This has been awarded through a variety of platforms providing bespoke solutions, which include data knowledge and intelligence, new business and service delivery models using the best combination of process, people and technology. The firm has also incorporated new products and services such as the Corporate Governance online platform, which assists in-house legal teams to keep up to date with regulatory and compliance changes. For a potential new client, this offers a creative approach to client delivery, which results in cost-effective, efficient work with added value.

[Feedback: This prompt is essentially an extension of the ‘why firm?’ question. It asks you to focus on some of the firm’s unique qualities that you believe are important. However, it is important to note that the qualities chosen must be enticing not necessarily for you (as a prospective trainee) but for a potential new client. Hence, for example, the client may be more interested in the unique traits related to the firm’s work than its training contract.

The first two paragraphs generally focus on the unique selling point of innovation and alternative services. The candidate’s first paragraph broadly introduces this unique selling point and cites a specific ranking that the firm achieved. The second paragraph has the candidate go into more detail with respect to how the firm has delivered better solutions through its innovation. Importantly, the candidate cites specific information, such as the ‘Corporate Governance online platform’, to substantiate their claims. Additionally, they make sure to link it back to what such innovation means for the client: ‘cost-effective, efficient work’.

Linking your answer back to what it means for the client is essential for you to draft a strong response. Many candidates write extensively about the firm in response to these kinds of questions without actually explaining why this would matter for the client in question. However, this misses the point. Crucially, the recruiter wants to know what you think clients like about the firm – after all, should you be successful in joining the firm, you will be expected (eventually) to pitch the firm to clients and win work. 

To improve this answer, the candidate could have been more concise in their answer. The first paragraph serves as a good introduction; however, the gist of the section could be communicated in fewer words. Notably, the second sentence could be cut down substantially. 

Furthermore, the candidate could have incorporated some more specific information into their answer. The candidate cites ‘a variety of platforms’ but then only names on in their answer. Try to avoid doing this in your responses. For answers in response to these kinds of questions, in particular, you should be including lots of specific names, facts and statistics to substantiate your argument. You must remember that a new client will not know much about the firm. Hence, broad, sweeping claims without any examples to back them up will not be persuasive. The same applies to when you draft your answers.]

The reputation that Addleshaw Goddard possesses, demonstrates a strong commitment to providing quality legal advice which is another unique selling point. The firm has built long-term relationships with its clients, by being a trusted business advisor that has a deep understanding of the markets that its clients operate in, through a sector-based approach. Therefore, the firm's lawyers have a high level of expertise. 

[Feedback: This section focuses on Addleshaw Goddard’s reputation and the expertise of its lawyers. Overall the paragraph does make a valid point. The candidate argues their claim succinctly and clearly. 

However, the central issue with this argument is that whilst it may be a selling point, it is not necessarily unique. As previously mentioned, a sector-based approach is not unique, with many firms adopting such an approach. Furthermore, almost every law firm will claim that they have long-standing relationships with clients and that their lawyers are experts in their respective fields. Hence, whilst Addleshaw Goddard may indeed have long-standing relationships with clients and lawyers who have expert insight, this is not a unique selling point. To improve this answer, therefore, the candidate needed to have discussed a different trait or taken a different angle to stress how the firm is different to its competitors. 

Additionally, the candidate should have included some specific evidence to substantiate their argument. Throughout the paragraph, there is a glaring lack of real-world examples. This is problematic as the reader is left doubting the authenticity of the candidate’s claims and wondering how the candidate knows that these claims are, in fact, the case. When you write your paragraphs, stick to a PEEL structure, and ensure that you include specific details. These details are not just for flair but are integral to your answer’s content. If you leave them out, you risk your answer being rejected by the recruiter for lacking credence.]

This reputation would not exist without the collaborative team culture, which is harnessed by the firms' value of being team players. This allows everyone to work together by respecting individuality and allowing ideas and expertise to thrive. This brings the best in each individual and creates a positive working environment, ultimately resulting in high quality client work.

[Feedback: This final paragraph touches on the firm’s culture. Like the above paragraph, the candidate does make a valid point and links it back to how a collaborative culture results in better quality work for the client.

However, the candidate does not provide any examples to back up their claims. You must remember that just because an answer may overlap with a response earlier in your application form, the answer must still contain all the usual examples and explanations. As this candidate has spent most of their word count in their first two paragraphs, they have run out of space to develop their argument and substantiate it accordingly. Make sure you stick to the PEEL structure for your paragraphs to ensure each one has sufficient depth. It is always better to write two well-developed paragraphs than three half-completed ones.

Furthermore, the candidate could have better explained how a collaborative culture results in higher quality client work. Stating that it allows ‘ideas and expertise to thrive’ and ‘brings [out] the best in each individual’ sounds good; however, it does not actually say much. Rather than making those claims, it would have been better for the candidate to give a practical example of how high-quality work would result from a collaborative environment. You should aim to show the recruiter what you mean rather than telling the recruiter. By using an example, you simultaneously make your claim and evidence it. This will ultimately make your answer more persuasive and concise.]

What makes AG stand out from other commercial law firms? (2000 characters)

AG's commitment to innovation makes it stand out from other commercial law firms. Given the ever-changing nature of commercial law, innovation is key to keeping up with it. Therefore, when choosing a law firm, clients will be looking for those with a focus on innovation. Ranking the 5th most innovative law firm in Europe by The Financial Times in 2021, AG has clearly established an excellent strategy to ensure innovation. AG has fully integrated legal technology into their business. For example, AG uses Kira to manage large amounts of information, making their work more efficient. HighQ provides tools to ensure efficient delivery of legal work and easy sharing of information. This evidences how AG's commitment to innovation is also ensuring other parts of their strategy are achieved - for example, using HighQ to facilitate collaboration. Not only does AG focus on legal technology, but they also made an effort to embed innovation into their culture. AG has partner-led innovation groups which work closely with the Innovation and Legal Technology Team. Staff are also encouraged to focus on innovation when completing their work.

Feedback: Candidates often find this question tough to answer. This is because the question includes a mix of motivational and commercial elements, which can make it difficult for candidates to focus their writing and identify what exactly the question is asking. We think candidates should keep their approach straightforward. You should identify no more than 2 central distinguishing features of AG (with a focus on depth over breadth), before using the PEEL structure to explain exactly how these features are unique. Given the commercial tilt of the question, you should focus on AG’s features as a business (rather than focusing on its training contract structure or culture). The candidate focuses heavily on depth over breadth, by discussing AG’s legal innovation strategy exclusively and building an argument from that point. There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying just one point. You should just make sure your writing is multifaceted and explores all elements of the point, as the candidate has done here.

The candidate makes a strong start with this question. They begin by stating a point directly relevant to the question. Straight away, the recruiter knows that (1) the candidate thinks innovation is a unique feature of AG and (2) that the candidate will eventually explain why they think AG’s approach is unique, This lends clarity and focus to the answer, which in turn makes it very easy for the recruiter to follow (and so be persuaded by).

We also commend the candidate’s level of detail in researching the firm. The candidate goes beyond simply asserting that AG is innovative. Instead, the candidate identifies specific authoritative rankings and named legal technology platforms used by the firm. In turn, this adds a great deal of weight to the candidate’s argument. They have backed up their initial point with specific and detailed research, which goes a long way in persuading the recruiter to accept their argument.

However, the candidate’s examples are still quite generic in this paragraph. The issue lies with the examples the candidate relies on. They seem to be arguing that HighQ and Kira make AG unique, but the reality is that this is not the case. These legal platforms are now used by nearly every major City law firm. Even the most conservative US firms now rely on HighQ as a central platform for document bibles, storage and filing. As such, these features do not truly make AG unique. We would instead expect the candidate to do thorough research into the platforms AG uses, before going on to explain exactly why these make AG’s approach unique.

In the same regard, the candidate’s explanations are quite simple and generic. The candidate namedrops several examples of platforms, but does not go beyond providing simple definitions of each one. For example, the candidate names Kira as an example. They do not go further than simply asserting that it “manages large amounts of information” and “makes work more efficient”. This means that the candidate is not using their examples effectively. In your own writing, you should make sure that each example contributes to your argument. You should fully contextualise and explain each example, before analysing how that example demonstrates your initial point.

From this, it is evident that AG goes beyond merely using legal technology as part of promoting innovation, going the extra mile and truly embedding innovation into their DNA. This has a significant positive impact for AG. Through the innovative use of legal technology, clients will receive their advice and work completed more efficiently, and solicitors will be able to focus on the more complex tasks, completing them to a higher standard. In addition, encouraging staff to focus on innovation and using legal technology to facilitate collaboration, solicitors will be more easily able to hear different perspectives and think outside of the box. This will allow clients to receive the best solution to their problem, making the firm highly attractive to clients.

Feedback: The candidate now makes a decent effort to analyse their examples. They begin by trying to make an interesting point (namely that AG embeds technology into every element of its business), before substantiating that point with some explanation. This results in a fairly cogent paragraph that is easy to follow.

However, we believe this to be a weak paragraph overall in two regards:

1. The candidate makes a rather cheesy assertion that AG “embeds innovation into their DNA”. However, the candidate never explains (1) what they mean by this nor (2) how exactly this makes AG different to other commercial law firms. The candidate previously asserted that AG has its own Innovation and Legal Technology team, but this does not really go far enough. Many firms will have their own Legal Technology teams, with some even going as far as developing their own in-house software platforms. As such, the candidate needed to explain this point in full.

2. This paragraph is missing the comparative analysis that is called for by the question. At no point does the candidate explain precisely how AG’s strategy makes it stand out against other commercial law firms. Instead, the candidate spends much of this paragraph writing about legal technology generally. They talk about the generic benefits of legal technology, such as how it makes work more “efficient” and frees up time for solicitors to work on “complex tasks”. This is true. However, it does not answer the question. The candidate needed to explain precisely how AG’s innovation approach makes it unique against other commercial law firms.

What attracts you to a career in commercial law and why specifically at Addleshaw Goddard? * 330 words 

I am drawn to Addleshaw Goddard due to its renowned expertise in Real Estate. Throughout my Commercial Property module, I have conducted research and advised on a fictional property development from the acquisition to the completion stage. I thoroughly enjoyed drafting break notices, and license agreements and advising on issues such as planning permission and environmental risks.

The firm's significant offerings in Real Estate, with 8 top-ranked practices and tier 1 ranking in the Legal 500 2023 guide, impresses me. I want to further my interest in real estate by training with a firm that will allow me to learn from the best lawyers in this sector.

Feedback: This paragraph suffers much of the same strengths and drawbacks of the previous. The candidate does well to state a concise point of interest, coupled with some specific evidence and research in support of it. You should also note how the candidate outlines specific and well-reasoned evidence in support of their interest.

That said, the candidate ultimately does little to differentiate Addleshaw Goddard’s strengths in Real Estate. Candidates often rely on rankings/guides to differentiate firms without truly explaining what they entail. Instead, the candidate should have explained (i) specifically what kinds of Real Estate deals/matters the firm works on and (ii) how they ultimately make the firm unique. Many firms in the City specialise in Real Estate – so the candidate needs to explain specifically why Addleshaw Goddard stands out to them.

Another reason I am drawn to the firm is because of its commitment to leveraging technology to be competitive. This is evidenced by the firm's A* ranking for Legal tech on the Legal Cheek, with the firm described as having an "ever-evolving" legal tech due to its highly rated Innovation and Legal Technology team.

I feel particularly suited to a career at the firm as I understand the value of leveraging technology to remain competitive and exceed client expectations. The firm's outlook demonstrates that I can be trained to provide excellent service and anticipate future risks for clients.

Feedback: Once again, the candidate does well to state a concise point from the outset. Then, the candidate develops that point by highlighting a piece of specific evidence in relation to Addleshaw Goddard. This has the beginnings of a good paragraph – it demonstrates that the candidate has put some sensible thought into their decision to apply to Addleshaw Goddard.

However, we think the candidate should have improved this paragraph in two regards. First, we are sceptical of the quality of Legal Cheek evidence. The Legal Cheek rankings tend to be based on subjective anonymous surveys, rather than quantifiable evidence assessed against hard metrics. As such, these rankings offer little insight into Addleshaw Goddard’s legal tech strategy.

Secondly, the candidate needs to tailor this point to Addleshaw Goddard more closely. Most City firms offer some sort of legal tech strategy these days (to varying degrees of success). Indeed, Addleshaw Goddard will not be the only law firm with high rankings in this field. The candidate should have identified specific features of Addleshaw Goddard’s legal tech strategy, before explaining how that differentiates the firm and why it appeals to them.

Why is Addleshaw Goddard your chosen firm? (approx. 300 words max)

Addleshaw Goddard's growth, demonstrated by its global revenue reaching its highest mark, is instrumental to AG being my chosen firm. This is reflective of my own ambitious nature; I want to work in an environment where my personal goals to grow and reach my full potential, whilst overcoming the challenges of working on high-profiled work will be supported.  Similarly, through AG’s ability to overcome the various challenges around the world, such as geopolitical uncertainty and heightened regulations with growth in all its offices, is a testament to the high quality of training I will receive.

[Feedback: You need to be specific in applications to demonstrate that you have done your research.  If you are pointing to a financial metric, don’t just say it’s at an all-time high; say what the figure is and when this was achieved. 

For that matter, revenue growth is laudable but it’s not as important as profit.  Profit dictates what the partners get paid, whereas revenue is the top-line number before cost (“revenue is vanity; profit is sanity”).  You should be wary of this dynamic when making points about how revenue-growth evidences superb training or high-profile work.  It’s perfectly possible to have high revenue, rubbish training and dull work.  But firms with high profit margins (e.g. Slaughter and May, Travers Smith, Freshfields, etc.) do usually have high-quality work and excellent training.

If you want to abbreviate a firm’s name to save words, define the abbreviation before using it.  In general though, you should be wary of abbreviating firm names.]

Additionally, the prospect of working in AG’s disputes resolution practice, recently awarded Disputes Resolution Team of the Year, is appealing. I previously competed in Model United Nations where I experienced international policy negotiations. Here, I developed practical skills such as listening and negotiations to defend my country's interests. This also increased my interest in joining a firm where I would receive the highest quality of training in disputes. Thus, the opportunity to represent clients before organisations such as the Supreme Court and Court of Justice of the European Union at AG highly interests me.

[Feedback: It’s great to show that you have done your research by pointing to specific awards that a firm has won.  But you should also specify which organisation decided the award and when it was won. 

The candidate uses PEE here to greater effect than previously.  We’re a little unconvinced by the references to the Supreme Court and the CJEU.  That’s a better point to run if you are an aspiring barrister, but it shows a lack of understanding about what disputes solicitors actually do.  Trials rarely happen because most matters are settled in advance to save costs  It’s not uncommon to meet senior solicitors with five years post-qualification experience who have never been to court.]

Thirdly, AG stands out to me as a firm where my career development will be best achieved. For example, with the high level of responsibility offered to previous trainees through management roles for legal streams and client meetings, I am confident of the challenging opportunities to develop the necessary skillset to become a successful commercial lawyer. I believe this is a unique feature of AG's training contract.

Feedback: It’s a stretch to call challenging opportunities a “unique feature” of Addleshaw Goddard’s training contract. Trust us, you will be stretched by the work as a trainee at most leading law firms. 

You need to invest time upfront researching the firm in order to write a convincing explanation of why you want to work there.  Resources like Chambers Student, Lex100 and the Roll on Friday firm profile pages are an invaluable starting point.  You should then go further and spend time on the graduate recruitment website to identify what the firm thinks is its unique selling points.  Next, try to speak to current trainees / associates / partners at the firm by attending career evenings or online events. You should then reduce all of your research down to three compelling reasons about why you want to work at your target firm.  You can name-check particular people that you have spoken to, awards that the firm has won or notable recent deals when identifying an attractive characteristic of the firm in your application.  

Our view is that this candidate has not done sufficient research to write a convincing answer.  The candidate was lucky that their application was successful.  You should not assume that you will have the same luck.]

What attracts you to Akin Gump and how do you consider you would add value as a trainee in the London office? (250 Words)

My attraction to Akin Gump’s London office stems from:

1. Akin Gump’s leading corporate restructuring practice (ranked tier 1 by the Legal 500). As an ‘ideas person’, restructuring appeals to me for its need of creative solutions. This perspective was reaffirmed during my internship at Chooi & Co where I creatively suggested the use of a mezzanine finance coupled with the issuance of high-yield bonds to save a company that was into administration. My creativity, coupled with commercial knowledge, will enable me to create bespoke solutions for Akin Gump’s premium client matters.

[Feedback: This paragraph does well to combine both aspects of the question (motivation for the firm and strengths of the candidate) in one answer. The candidate does well to evidence Akin Gump’s prowess in restructuring, even if citing the Legal500 a bit on the ordinary side. If you can find more interesting pieces of evidence (for example, how many years in a row has Akin Gump Law360’s restructuring team of the year award?) this helps the answer to stand out (and elucidates your strong interest in the firm).

Be wary of writing clearly – ‘I creatively suggested’ – ‘creatively’ does not add anything important, and it seems an odd adjective choice for ‘suggested’, and ‘appeals to me for its need of’ – is overly verbose.]

 2. Akin Gump’s ‘immersive, hands-on experience’ training. Trainees at Akin Gump are expected to assist on high-profile transactions alongside senior practitioners from the start (according to Akin Gump’s graduate brochure). This means that trainees must be comfortable with high levels of responsibility and confidence to operate independently.

As a quick learner, who enjoys fast-paced environments, I am adept at multitasking. For example, I learned to code C++ and XML while simultaneously starting a company and procuring seed funding in six months. With my organisational ability, I will be able to simultaneously complete trainee tasks, such as drafting an NDA issues list, and assist in developing solutions for complex regulatory matters.

[Feedback: Despite being a little verbose, this answer is excellent at highlighting Akin Gump’s qualities, giving substantive evidence for such qualities, and linking back to the candidate’s unique experiences. Furthermore, the candidate demonstrates knowledge of the role of a trainee, which is a crucial but often missed aspect of answers to similar questions.]

3. Akin Gump’s ‘collegiate’ culture. As the captain of my university’s football team, I have experience in using the pros and cons of each member to create an effective and strong team working environment. I intend to further the collegiate nature at Akin Gump by using this skill.

[Feedback: This paragraph is noticeably smaller than the previous two. Again, try and make sure your paragraphs are equally balanced, otherwise you risk producing underdeveloped answers.

This answer is too generic – every firm will claim to have a collegiate culture. The question wants you to find Akin Gump’s USPs, and being ‘collegiate’ is certainly not unique to them.

Furthermore, although the candidate’s example is good and unique to them, this evidence could have been done with additional development: how did the pros and cons help you to achieve a strong team, etc.

Finally, be wary of wanting to discuss a ‘teamwork’ competency, but then using a ‘leadership’ example – these are not the same, and if mixed up can paint an unflattering picture of you!]

How is Ashurst different to the other firms you have applied to? (250 words max)*

Unlike other city law firms, Ashurst’s medium trainee intake results in a high-level of trainee responsibility in alignment with structured training, and this was reiterated to me after speaking to Nicola Stafford at the Legal Cheek Virtual Law Fair. Therefore, as the firm’s deals often require both inter-departmental and cross-jurisdictional co-operation, I am excited to use this high level of responsibility to contribute to such dynamic, multifaceted transactions.

[Feedback Candidates will often reference the size of a firm’s trainee intake. Whilst it may suggest, as this candidate writes, something about the kind of training you might receive at the firm, it is a very generic argument to make. Ashurst offers 40 training contracts a year…but so does Dentons. Indeed, BCLP offers approximately the same at 35, whilst NRF offers 45. The point is that this characteristic is shared between law firms, and, in isolation, says extraordinarily little about how a firm is ‘different’ to the other firms you may have applied to. To test whether an answer is generic, blank out the firm’s name, and see if the same answer, broadly speaking, would work for another firm. Aside from ‘Nicola Stafford’, this answer could easily apply to any of the firms listed in this comment.

It would have been better to write about the (unique) kinds of work that Ashurst does, as opposed to the number of training contracts offered a year. A law firm’s work is, as you would expect, their primary focus, and will inform all other aspects of the business. Therefore, you should address at least some of your answer towards this.

Another factor which differentiates Ashurst from other commercial law firms is its offering of a pro bono training contract seat, which is not available at many of its competitors. = I volunteered for Support Through Court at university, where I provided moral and technical guidance to clients who were facing legal proceedings alone. My volunteering for the Death Penalty Project has meant that I am especially interested in the Death Row and the Criminal Justice System priority area as offered by Ashurst.

[Feedback: This is a valid point – many (but not all) firms do not offer a dedicated pro bono seat. The candidate does provide some substantiation for why this is an important point for them; however, the evidence provided reiterates the examples given in the cover letter section. Whilst this is not catastrophic, it unnecessarily weakens an answer.

The firm-specific evidence provided is good and demonstrates a closer reading of their marketing materials and website. To elevate an answer like this, you might consider reaching out to individuals who have worked within Ashurst’s pro bono priority areas and referencing them in your answer to further substantiate your claims.

Nevertheless, there are two core drawbacks to this paragraph. First, there is a typo: ‘competitors. = I volunteered’. Second, the paragraph reads like a collection of independent statements. Your answer should craft an argument, with each sentence building on the previous one to work up towards a conclusion by the end. This requires less work than one may imagine – just ensure that your sentences link from one another. For example, the candidate could have written: ‘[…] is its offering of a pro bono training contract seat, which is not available at many of its competitors. This is particularly attractive given my past volunteering experience with Support Through Court […]’ [underlining indicates our amendment]].

Within an industry ever-more dominated by algorithms, Ashurst has set itself apart through the development of Ashurst Advance. Though many law firms are implementing new innovative, legal solutions, Ashurst Advance stands out as it is the combination of innovative service delivery, investment in R&D and technological advancement to improve its offerings to clients.

[Feedback: This is a very short paragraph, standing at only 53 words. With a 250 word-limit, it is best to stick to two 125-word answers which are very well argued and evidenced, or three ~80-word answers. The important aspect is the balance between paragraphs – if you write more than you should for one point, you preclude yourself from properly presenting your other points.

Technology and ‘advanced delivery’ are very trendy topics; however, they are difficult to discuss properly. The former half of this candidate’s answer gives a generic preamble to the topic of advanced delivery/technology solutions, and the latter half describes, conceptually, what it is. Other than the name, there is little specificity regarding what exactly Ashurst Advance does – here, elucidatory examples are sorely missed.

Additionally, this point, unlike the previous ones, makes no reference to the candidate, their interests, or their motivations. Whilst the question does not specifically ask you to opine about why Ashurst’s USPs are attractive to you, it implied (given that the question refers to other firms you have applied to).]

How is Ashurst different to the other firms you have applied to? (250 words max)*

Ashurst differentiates itself by investing in a research and development arm of technology, Ashurst Digital Ventures. Attending ‘Secrets to Success: Lawtech Special Edition’ with Legal Cheek enabled me to learn about Ashurst’s approach to provide tech-enabled legal solutions. One of the Ashurst’s competitive advantages is its ability to integrate legal advice and tech-enabled products that are developed in collaboration with clients. The award of ‘most innovative firm of the year’ at the British Legal Technology Awards 2019 has further demonstrated Ashurst’s leading position in this regard.

[Feedback:Candidates spend too much time talking about LegalTech and innovation, but Ashurst prides itself on its success in this area.  The candidate should talk about Ashurst Advance here, which is more concrete than vague assertions that Ashurst integrates its advice with tech more effectively than its competitors. There is also a typo on “one of the Ashurst’s.]

From what I have seen, Ashurst has a clearer strategy than the other firms to strengthen its international presence. Ashurst has planned to enhance its network in Asia Pacific and Continental Europe by appointing several partners in its core practice areas to expedite growth in these regions. This shows Ashurst’s continuous development and explains its strong performance with over 20% revenue growth in Hong Kong and mainland China in the last financial year.

[Feedback: This picks up on the theme earlier in the cover letter.  It’s a good point, but Ashurst definitely isn’t unique in this regard.  Every firm is adding partners in growth markets like Asia (although less so in continental Europe, which will be flat for growth for the foreseeable future).  The candidate could take this point further by referring to Ashurst’s merger with Blake Dawson in Australia in 2011 and then setting out how the firm has built on this since to establish a strong bench in APAC.  But be careful not to overdo this - you’re applying for the London office afterall. 

Having met the firm through different events, I have found that Ashurst seems to achieve a better balance between maintaining high performance and having a collegiate culture. I have learnt that Ashurst trainees are expected to reach particularly high standards. Meanwhile, because of Ashurst’s efforts to promote diversity and inclusion, including Committed to Change and its awareness of multiculturalism, the firm creates a more diverse and supportive working environment. The firm seems to place particular importance on supporting it people and encouraging them to reach their full potential.

[Feedback: Ashurst places strong emphasis on its culture and camaraderie (it’s known informally in the profession as “Lashurst” for a reason…).  It is something to mention when talking about the firm.  You can tie it back to people from the firm that you have met (e.g., that you picked up on Associate X’s genuine enthusiasm for Ashurst; Trainee Y emphasised that the best thing about working at Ashurst was the firm’s collegiate culture, exemplified by Z, etc.). Typo at supporting “it people” as well.]  

Please use this section to tell us about yourself, your skills, achievements and why you want to train as a solicitor and work at Ashurst.

I am a first-class English literature graduate studying the GDL at the University of Law, Moorgate. With varied and robust legal work experience, I am applying for a direct training contract with Ashurst.

Feedback: For all intents and purposes, this question asks you to write a cover letter. It is crucial that you structure it effectively. As such, you should split your answer into distinct sections addressing each element of the question with 2-3 compelling points. We advise the following approach: (1) why commercial law, (2) why Ashurst and (3) why you (with your achievements backing your points up). This means you can start your letter broadly, before honing in on why Ashurst should interview you.

There is nothing wrong with a brief introductory paragraph. That said, the recruiters already know that the candidate is a first-class English Literature graduate studying the GDL at ULaw. The candidate could safely cut this out if pressed for space.

I have decided to become a commercial solicitor because I find the prospect of working on commercial matters exciting. Commercial law requires an understanding of specific industries to assist clients in achieving their strategic goals, including the key risks and opportunities associated with different commercial sectors. This requires a deeper level of business understanding and grasping industry nuances and their wider implications is something I find stimulating. For example, during my internship at XXX, I enjoyed applying my commercial knowledge when identifying a clause that distorted the meaning of an IP contract relating to a music video.

Feedback: For “why commercial law?” answers, we advise adopting a point, evidence, explanation, link (‘PEEL’) structure for each paragraph. You should begin by making a point/claim about why you find the career attractive. You should then provide evidence for that claim and explain how that evidence proves your point. Lastly, you must link your point back to the overall question at hand: explain why your point makes the career path interesting to you. We recommend, as this candidate has done, that you offer at least two detailed reasons so that you demonstrate what the profession involves.

This candidate does well to provide a specific example of a time wherein they applied commercial knowledge in a legal context. That said, the candidate needs to improve this paragraph in two ways. Firstly, the candidate’s point is not specific enough to the work of commercial solicitors. While commercial solicitors certainly assist clients in achieving their goals, this is not unique to commercial law. Both investment bankers and consultants will all “grasp industry nuances” and assist clients with “strategic goals”/”key risks and opportunities”. In fact, if you are truly interested in the commercial implications of your advice, a career in consulting or investment banking might suit you better. To improve, the candidate must demonstrate that they understand how commercial lawyers help clients. It is not enough simply to say that commercial law is exciting because it involves commercial matters. 

While you should read our blog article on “why commercial law” for further details, our view is that one of commercial law’s distinguishing features is that you must help your clients anticipate and pre-emptively manage risk associated with a transaction (e.g., what happens if one party defaults on their obligations, what happens if one party wants to voluntarily terminate the agreement, etc.).  Like insurance, a large part of commercial law is about the management of risk to avoid significant loss.

Secondly, the candidate’s explanations and evidence are unsubstantiated. Though the candidate asserts an interest in industry nuances and business trends, it is unclear how the candidate’s evidence (namely that they worked on an IP contract) relates to this. The candidate needs to tie their evidence and explanations together, before explaining how their evidence proves their point. We are also left asking ourselves “so what?” at numerous points. The candidate tells us that they enjoyed applying commercial knowledge when identifying a clause in an IP contract, but they do not tell us how they did this or why this relates to their point. Without further explanation, the recruiters will question the relevance of this experience.

Your answers should always follow the PEEL structure so that the reader can follow your argument.

I find analysing the impact of long-term dynamic forces and short-term change on business interesting. The prospect of applying a critical analysis of market trends and industry responses to the execution of transactions is appealing. The opportunity to implement these conclusions, for example, in the way facilities agreements might be negotiated and drafted, now with the inclusion of a force majeure, is something I enjoy. Ashurst's strengths in finance, project finance and infrastructure would mean consistent exposure to work that requires a consideration of evolving commercial climates as a trainee.

Feedback: The candidate begins to touch upon some examples of the work commercial lawyers do. That said, this paragraph suffers from the same flaw as the previous. The candidate’s central point is not specific to commercial law. When drafting “why law?” answers, you should always ask yourself whether you can replace commercial law with a similar profession. One such example would be as follows:

●        “I want to be a commercial solicitor because I find the impact of long-term dynamic forces and short-term changes on business interesting”.

Here, you could easily replace “commercial solicitor” with the following and it makes just as much sense:

●        “I want to be an investment banker because I find the impact of long-term dynamic forces and short-term changes on business interesting”.

 If you can do this, then your reasoning isn’t specific enough.

Though the candidate starts tailoring their reasoning to commercial law towards the end, we are only told that drafting facilities agreements is “something the candidate would enjoy”. The candidate never elaborates on why they find this interesting, nor do they offer any examples in support of this. The candidate also name-drops force majeure clauses but does not show any understanding of what this means. The candidate also offers no evidence or examples to prove their points. Furthermore, the candidate does not need to tailor the paragraph to Ashurst yet (and in any case the candidate never explains why they are interested in project finance). The candidate should only focus on why they want to become a commercial solicitor at this point.

To improve, the candidate should have re-structured this paragraph so that it closely follows the PEEL structure. They should have led in with one well-tailored point about why they want to be a commercial solicitor. Then, they should have provided specific evidence to back up their point and explained it in full. Finally, they should have included a “link” at the end between their evidence/explanations and their overall point.

The candidate also make a minor grammatical mistake in the final sentence - “a consideration” should just be “consideration”. Though this might seem very minor, you should remember that recruiters are looking for any reason to reject your application.

The strength of the finance practice at Ashurst in London is particularly attractive. An important experience for me that encouraged my pursuance of commercial law was negotiating with prospective participants when working for [redacted organisation] (a reusable cup scheme in Oxford). I negotiated the terms of their involvement and recruited five cafés to take part in our launch which equated to an 83% success rate. I would anticipate applying these skills when negotiating share purchase or facilities agreements.

Feedback: The candidate now moves onto the “why Ashurst” element of the question. We would recommend providing 2-3 well-tailored paragraphs that follow the PEEL structure. You should focus on the firm’s work, training and culture in descending order of priority. This candidate begins by discussing Ashurst’s work in finance, before later explaining why they want to train there.

The first half of this paragraph follows the PEEL structure reasonably well. The point of attraction is clearly stated, whilst the succeeding evidence is based on the candidate’s personal experiences. The candidate’s evidence is described well, with the candidate stating clearly (1) what their involvement was and (2) what the outcome was (with a specific statistic given to support this). The reason for the candidate’s motivation for Ashurst is also chosen well. It gets to the core aspect of a law firm, namely its work.

To improve, the candidate should have tailored their point to Ashurst much more closely. The candidate asserts that Ashurst has a strong finance practice, but offers no detail to substantiate this point (e.g., that the department is rated as Band 1 or 2 by Legal 500 or that it includes a particular partner who is recongised as an expert in his or her field). As such, the point comes across as generic. Again, the rule of thumb to follow is that if you can replace the firm’s name with a competitor’s name, then your point is not specific enough. For instance, you could easily replace the candidate’s point with the following sentence:

“The strength of the finance practice at Norton Rose Fulbright in London is particularly attractive”.

This means that the point is not tailored well enough to Ashurst.

Furthermore, the candidate never links their experience/evidence back to Ashurst’s finance practice nor explains why that evidence made finance appealing to them. The candidate instead asserts that they would “apply these skills when negotiating share purchase agreements” without explaining how they would do this or why it relates to Ashurst’s finance practice. It seems that this example would be better off in the achievements/skills section.

Finally, you should avoid words like “in pursuance”.  No one talks like this in real life.  It sounds pretentious and does not demonstrate your ability to clearly communicate.

I would be excited to train with Ashurst given the continual growth of its London office. The lateral hires of Daniel Franks, Jaques McCheseney, Rhiannon Webster and Etay Katz between 2020 and 2021 indicate the firm's commitment to providing value add to clients. I would relish the opportunity to consistently contribute to quality work for prestigious clients due to this notable offering within the legal market.

Feedback:In this paragraph, the candidate continues with their motivations for training at Ashurst. The candidate concisely states their point, before offering specific named examples to back up the point (namely that Ashurst has made several lateral hires in recent times). This specific evidence demonstrates that the candidate has researched Ashurst and knows about its recent performance. 

This paragraph requires the same improvement points as the previous. Firstly, the central point is not tailored to Ashurst. While it is true that Ashurst has experienced continual growth in London, the same can be said for nearly every prestigious commercial law firm in the City post-covid as deal flow increasedThe candidate could enhance this point by (1) identifying distinctive parts of Ashurst’s growth strategy in London (e.g., a focus on a particular area) or (2) provide evidence that Ashurst’s growth outstrips competitors (e.g., X% p.a. growth between 2020-21 vs. Y% average). 

Secondly, the candidate does not offer any quality analysis of their evidence. The candidate simply name-drops lateral hires and asserts an obvious point that these hires would “add value to clients”. We are not told which teams these partners joined or why Ashurst hired them. Consequently, the candidate’s reasoning is not tailored well enough. Every major City law firm will have made lateral hires within 2020-21, not just Ashurst.

Furthermore, the candidate attempts to link their explanations back to their point but does not do so particularly well. The candidate simply asserts that they want to contribute to quality work for prestigious clients, without explaining how this relates to Ashurst’s finance practice. To improve, the candidate needs to link their evidence back to their interest in Ashurst’s finance work. We are mindful that the question’s word count constrains candidates, but you should always provide as much detail as you can and stick to a clear PEEL structure.

We would also recommend avoiding flowery language wherever possible. The candidate uses the word “relish”, which recruiters often cite as a prime example of clichéd flowery language. “Relish” is specifically identified as such by Shearman & Sterling’s lead recruiter (see point 12 in this article:

Commercial law clients have no time to unpack flowery language and essay-like prose. They will expect you to write plainly, clearly and accessibly. As such, recruiters will assess whether you can write in a manner that is concise and easy to understand.

Ashurst's key industry focus allowed it to rebound from the Pandemic in 2020 and continue to take market share. Its capacity to assist clients with unprecedented matters, for example, supporting Santander in relation to the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan schemes, indicates I would be able to apply my innovative thinking as a trainee to contribute to the firm's ability to generate market-leading work in times of crisis.

Ashurst's commitment to innovation is therefore appealing. I appreciate how the NewLaw Division has had an 11% increase in total firm production hours which strengthens the firm's capacity for client work and results in exposure to varied work as a trainee.

Feedback: The candidate seems to be making the point that Ashurst’s work is innovative (and as such, this appeals to them). You should note how the candidate uses specific examples and evidence to back up their arguments. Firstly, the candidate identifies a specific case that Ashurst worked on. This demonstrates that the candidate has researched Ashurst to a high level and has gone beyond simply reading graduate recruitment materials. Secondly, the candidate not only names an innovative Ashurst programme (the NewLaw division) but provides a statistic demonstrating how Ashurst’s innovations have improved its productivity as a business. This is the level of detail that you need to go into when backing up your points.

Once again, the candidate needed to tie this evidence back to their point and explain why it interests them. The candidate asserts that Ashurst’s innovations appeal to them, but never explains why this personally motivates them. We are mindful of the tight word count. As such, the candidate could have cut down on redundant and long-winded sentences (namely “I would be able to apply my innovative thinking to contribute to the firm’s ability to generate market-leading work in times of crisis”) so they could save space. This gives the candidate more space to drill down on their explanations and link evidence back to their overarching point.

You should also vary your sentence structure as much as possible. Much of the candidate’s writing is long-winded. You are not writing an essay or a novel. If you can split up your sentences or vary the structure, then you should do so.

We also do not like the candidate’s random capitalisation of words such as the “Pandemic”.  While it was undoubtedly a seismic event, it does not require capitalisation.  You should check the Economist’s style guide (which is freely available online) if you are unsure whether your grammar is correct.

I am impressed at Ashurst's ability to work seamlessly on complex cross-border matters. I understand that the firm's unique full financial integration encourages collaboration between its offices and adds to this strength. Whilst at XXX, I enjoyed observing a multi-jurisdictional dispute and would look forward to the challenge of providing technical solutions to legally complex matters at Ashurst.

Feedback: The candidate follows PEEL reasonably well in the first half of the paragraph. The candidate concisely states their point, before tailoring their point somewhat by explaining how Ashurst has unique full financial integration (which in turn allows each office to work seamlessly). Then, the candidate brings in a specific example of a time they observed a multi-jurisdictional dispute as evidence to back up their point.

To improve, the candidate again needs to explain what they found interesting about the multi-jurisdictional dispute. It is not enough simply to say that they “enjoyed” observing one. The candidate would then need to link their explanations back to the point much more clearly. The candidate concludes by stating that they could provide “technical solutions to complex matters”, but this reads like a separate point altogether. The candidate would need to tie their own experience with multi-jurisdictional disputes back to their interest in Ashurst.

I possess the requisite skill set for a career in commercial law. I enjoy problem-solving and welcome challenges as I find the analytical process rewarding. I demonstrated strong skills in this regard when I implemented a three-step process to improve my teams' ability to meet disclosure deadlines when working on the document review for a High Court Construction case at national law firm, XXX.

Feedback: In these final paragraphs, the candidate addresses the “why you” element. They discuss their key skills and achievements to date. The candidate rightly takes the opportunity to demonstrate all the key competencies gained from their achievements to date, which might be relevant to a career in commercial law at Ashurst.

The candidate can clearly draw a lot of evidence from their work experience. Notwithstanding that, we always recommend drilling down on the examples given and explaining when each was achieved/undertaken. By giving a chronology, you can show Ashurst how your abilities/skills have evolved and what you plan to do to progress them further. The candidate could have done so here by stating the year of their achievements, and by using language that ties all these examples together.

We would also recommend that every experience specifically backs up their point. Here, the candidate talks about problem-solving as a key skill. They would want to identify a specific example of a problem they faced during this case (perhaps the team struggled to meet disclosure deadlines due to some unforeseen event). Then, the candidate can explain how they overcame this by implementing a three-stage process.

 Applying knowledge in a specific context allows me to draw on my critical thinking skills. My first class degree and current GDL average of 75% demonstrate my ability to tackle intellectual challenges perceptively. I have applied this aptitude in a legal context by successfully annotating a 3000 document litigation bundle.

Feedback: We recommend that you avoid using your grades as an example of an achievement, unless you can quantify it somehow (e.g. you were in the top X% of your class, or won a scholarship as a result) and overcame some challenges in achieving said grades. A lot of candidates will cite their grades as an achievement, which in turn will make your writing less unique. In any case, the candidate would need to explain how they applied their skills from the GDL in order to tackle the bundle comprising 3000 documents. 

It’s also not fully clear whether the bundle is 3,000 words, 3,000 pages or 3,000 documents.  3,000 documents makes the most sense in this context, but it’s not completely clear.  The reader is left wondering how big the bundle was, rather than admiring the candidate’s achievement. 

Finally, the candidate assets that they “successfully” annotated the bundle.  Who judged their success?  This an assertion; it does not credibly evidence the candidate’s critical thinking skills.

I am highly organised and take ownership of my workstreams. As a clerk, I prioritised to ensure urgent authorities bundles were completed promptly and that court deadlines were met.

Feedback: The candidate describes their work as a clerk generically here but does not substantiate it with any specific examples of how they organised their work and took ownership. Given word constraints, the candidate could have cut this out altogether and leverage the word count more effectively elsewhere. The candidate presumably would have described this in the work experience section anyway.

I have built and maintained professional relationships with ease as a clerk, office administrator, and developer of a sustainable scheme. I understand the importance of clear communication and the necessity to build client trust through thoughtful interactions. Through volunteering with a reading charity, I have developed the skill of translating information into digestible concepts. This is relevant to making complex legal concepts accessible to clients which I believe is a vital skill for a commercial solicitor.

Feedback: The candidate briefly touches upon their volunteering experiences here. Volunteering is a great way to show firms your commitment, organisation and motivation. Just by presenting this example, the candidate is already beginning to convince Ashurst of their competencies and their suitability for the role.

That said, the candidate should have drilled down on their volunteering experience further. How did they develop the skill of translating information into digestible concepts? Why is this important for commercial clients? To save the space, the candidate should have cut out the first half of their paragraph. They will have the opportunity to discuss their work as a clerk/office administrator/sustainable scheme developer elsewhere in their applications. As such, the candidate should take this opportunity to drill down on their volunteering work.

Please use this section to tell us about yourself, your skills, achievements and why you want to train as a solicitor and work at Ashurst. (738 words)

I want to work as a commercial lawyer as it is engaging to immerse myself in the commercial aspects of a client's business. For example, as a debt recovery paralegal, I acted on behalf of several 'Big Six' energy providers. I was exposed to the commercial implications of the recent energy crisis and the breakdown in trust between our clients and their customers. I helped to rebuild this relationship by creating a complaints log to refer specific issues, such as Ombudsman complaints, to the client. I also ensured that any complex details were explained clearly to debtors, such as Ofgem guidelines throughout the Supplier of Last Resort process. As a result, our Q2 recoveries exceeded targets by over 150% and we received minimal complaints from debtors. I enjoy considering both commercial and legal issues in conjunction; it highlights the real-world impact that the law can have on businesses. As such, I would embrace the opportunity to work at Ashurst, where lawyers act as commercial, rather than purely legal, advisors.

Feedback: This is a classic cover letter requiring you to cover (1) why you want to be a commercial solicitor, (2) why you have specifically chosen Ashurst and (3) why you are suited to a career at Ashurst. In that sense, the candidate has structured this section well. The candidate splits it out into three distinct paragraphs addressing each element of the cover letter, which in turn makes the candidate’s writing easy to read and follow.

Starting with this first paragraph, the candidate adopts the PEEL/AL structure well (point, evidence, explanation, link). The candidate begins by addressing the question directly. They state a concise point outlining their reason for interest in commercial law. Then, the candidate deploys specific and personalised evidence in support of their point. We particularly like the level of detail that the candidate gets into. The candidate highlights a specific and relevant experience, before painting it with statistical and factual details. This adds persuasive weight to the candidate’s overall argument. It demonstrates a clear, consistent interest in commercial law. Finally, the candidate explains how this experience developed their interest in commercial law. They finally link the evidence/explanations back in with their initial point of interest. This results in a coherent paragraph that the recruiter can easily follow.

That said, this paragraph needed to improve in a couple of regards. First, the candidate’s initial point is not particularly well-tailored to commercial law. The candidate asserts that they want to “immerse themselves in commercial aspects of a client’s business”. However, this is not a unique feature of commercial law. Any advisory or consultancy position would allow you to immerse yourself in a similar way. Although the candidate goes on to explain why this point is relevant to commercial law, it nonetheless leaves a questionable first impression on the recruiter.

Secondly, the candidate’s writing about their debt recovery experience is a little unfocused. The candidate argues that they developed an interest in “considering commercial and legal issues in conjunction”, but does not explain precisely what these issues were nor how they interested the candidate. Instead, the candidate seems to discuss their experience as though it were addressing a competency question. The candidate spends time telling us how they helped the company exceed targets, but it is not clear how this is relevant to the question. When discussing your personal experiences, you should always make sure they contribute to your wider arguments in some fashion.

I am applying to Ashurst specifically as the firm has a friendly and collaborative culture. Whilst all firms state they have a friendly culture, during the Evening with Ashurst Event, I learned that these were principles genuinely embedded throughout the firm. For example, trainee Saba Nasrolahi shared how after just two weeks at the firm, she was involved in high-level social inclusion and mobility meetings. The fact that a trainee can participate in prominent internal discussions highlights that Ashurst is a firm that is accepting of trainees and places value on their input. Personally, I enjoy applying myself within a collaborative and accepting culture. As a team leader at the [redacted university] Students' Union, I was given agency to create new initiatives. I organised a [redacted event] charity event, involving over 25 staff members and raising over £1,000 for Sport In Mind. As someone who thrives in a friendly working culture, I see myself as a natural fit for a career at Ashurst.

Feedback: As with the previous paragraph, the candidate structures this paragraph well. They lead in with a point that specifically addresses their interest in Ashurst, before developing that point with detailed research and personalised evidence. We particularly like the following features of this application:

1. The candidate uses high-quality and detailed research into Ashurst, which flows from their personal experience at an Ashurst event. This helps convert a generic point about Ashurst’s culture into something that is specific and reasonably well-tailored. In attending the event, the candidate also demonstrates that they have a long-term commitment to a career at Ashurst. This demonstrates to the recruiter that the candidate has thought seriously and taken the time to research Ashurst, before ultimately deciding to apply there.

2. The candidate identifies a subjective feature of Ashurst and tries to back it up with objective points about the firm (i.e. that trainees are involved in social inclusion and mobility meetings from the outset). This goes at least some way in tailoring the candidate’s reasoning towards Ashurst.

3. The candidate backs up their interest in Ashurst with a specific, detailed personal example that is clearly relevant to the question. The candidate not only name-drops a relevant example, but they explain how it demonstrates their interest in the initial point. This illustrates to the recruiter that the candidate’s personal values/interests align with a career at Ashurst.

Regardless, we are not convinced that candidates should rely on culture as a central motivational point. This is because it is a subjective feature of the firm that is hard to quantify. It is impossible to understand a firm’s culture until you have begun working there. This makes it hard for candidates to tailor their writing and craft persuasive arguments about the firm’s culture. For instance, the candidate asserts that they are interested in Ashurst’s “collaborative and accepting culture”, but nearly all firms will claim that they are accepting and collaborative. It is also difficult to tailor culture points to firms. For instance, the candidate discusses Ashurst’s social inclusion and mobility meetings but this does not go far enough in tailoring their reasoning. Many City law firms will organise socials, committees and diversity networks that trainees can get involved in from the outset. As such, the candidate’s reasoning is not truly tailored enough to Ashurst.

Throughout university, I worked as bar staff for my Students' Union. Approaching my role with enthusiasm, I made a significant impact and I was promoted to Team Leader within just two months. As Team Leader, I developed communication, delegation and leadership skills. In freshers week - the busiest time of the year - I managed a different team every night, composed mostly of new staff. To tackle the problems this posed, I formally introduced myself to each team member and explained their role for the night. Additionally, I ensured that experienced staff were spread throughout the venue so that inexperienced staff could learn by osmosis. This approach allowed us to achieve great results. One memorable night included leading the team to a record-breaking revenue of over £20,000 within a single day. As a result of my interpersonal skills, I was also elected as social secretary of the Union staff base, going on to organise various fundraising and social events. I believe that I can apply my interpersonal skills at Ashurst to forge strong relationships with my colleagues, fitting into the open and friendly culture of the firm.

Feedback: The candidate now moves towards explaining why they are suited to Ashurst. This initial paragraph is strong because the candidate deploys a high-quality position of responsibility, before explaining (1) what they did and (2) identifying a specific example of their success. The candidate writes about their experience succinctly, which makes it easy for the recruiter to infer the skills they might have learned from it. We also like how the candidate quantifies their achievements with specific numerical detail. The candidate identifies a specific amount of money the Student Union raised because of the candidate’s actions. This adds persuasive value to the candidate’s argument and helps the recruiter understand the candidate’s precise impact in their role.

That said, this paragraph needed to improve on the following points:

1. The candidate has a tendency to “tell” their competencies rather than “showing” them. For instance, the candidate asserts that they developed “communication, delegation and leadership” skills. However, the candidate does not explain precisely how they communicated with staff or applied their delegation skills. In your own writing, you need to make sure that you back up your stated competencies with specific evidence and examples.

2. The candidate asserts that they would apply interpersonal skills at Ashurst, but does not go much further in tailoring their writing. While it’s true that you would need good communication skills at Ashurst, the same is true for nearly any professional services firm in the City. The question wants to know why you are suited to Ashurst specifically, so you need to make sure that your writing hones in on this point.

I also possess strong analytical skills that I apply to complete tasks with efficiency and purpose. For example, as a debt recovery paralegal, the firm took on a new client and received an influx of 1,000 cases spread between three team members. Over 100 of these cases were linked to the same debtor. This created confusion and inefficiency for the department as different team members were contacting and researching the same individual. Noticing these issues, I took the responsibility for the cases and considered how best to approach the task. The two issues I identified were (1) the lack of a single contact point to resolve the cases, and (2) the confusion caused by the spread of data across 100+ files. Firstly, I placed all the files in my name so that I could serve as the contact for the debtor going forwards. Secondly, I created a spreadsheet which contained the relevant information from all the linked accounts. Effectively, this collated the cases into a single document, which allowed all parties to easily input information to resolve the disputes. As a result of these actions, the files were closed within 6 weeks and we received a record-breaking payment of over £300,000. I believe I can apply these analytical skills to a career at Ashurst to approach tasks efficiently and effectively.

Feedback: This looks to be an excellent paragraph – it is a major improvement on the previously. It follows the STAR structure (situation, task, action, result) to a very high level.

First, the candidate identifies a specific example from their work as a debt recovery paralegal. They begin by concisely outlining the situation and tasks/challenges they faced, using quantified and specific numerical detail. By contextualising the challenge and providing numerical values, the candidate’s writing becomes more persuasive. It becomes clear to the recruiter that the candidate can handle high volumes of complex cases with efficiency and organisational skills. 

Then, the candidate explains precisely what skills they possess and how they applied them to the situation at hand. Instead of simply “telling” the recruiter they have organisational and analytical skills, the candidate outlines specific and detailed steps they took to achieve a positive outcome. This allows the recruiter to infer competencies from the specific actions carried out by the candidate.

As with the previous paragraph, the candidate also does well to quantify their achievements with specific and quantified details. We are told that the files closed within exactly 6 weeks and resulted in a record level of payments to the firm. This adds great persuasive value, by highlighting the scale and high level of the candidate’s achievements.

As a minor point for improvement, the candidate should have explained more clearly how they developed analytical skills in this situation. The candidate asserts they have analytical skills. However, the candidate’s steps/”actions” seem to focus instead on their organisational skills. The candidate tells us that they improved processes and created spreadsheets, which goes a long way in demonstrating the candidate’s efficiency. It’s less clear how the candidate developed analytical/critical thinking skills through these actions. We think the candidate would be better off modifying their initial point so that it focuses on organisational skills, rather than analytical abilities.

Law firms are all different - tell us about three things, which are personal to you, that you feel differentiate Baker McKenzie from other leading firms and encouraged you to apply? (300 words max)* 

Firstly, I find Baker McKenzie’s global breadth attractive.     

The firm’s legal services centres operating in Manila, Belfast, Tampa and Buenos Aires help disaggregate high-volume, large-scale projects whilst supporting the needs of 77 international offices without time-zone obstacles. As someone who frequently moves between [Country 1] and [Country 2], the importance of cross-border collaboration stands out to me, especially in organising Vocational competitions remotely on an eight-hour time difference as [position] for the [Russell Group University London Society] . To me, Baker McKenzie’s efforts to provide seamless international support for clients and lawyers differentiates it from other firms, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to be part of this global network.

Feedback: This is a typical ‘why our firm?’ question. Similarly to ‘why law?’ questions, you must write your answers with well-structured PEEL paragraphs. You want to begin by making a claim about why Baker McKenzie is attractive to you. Then, you want to provide evidence for that claim and explain how the evidence proves your point. Lastly, you want to wrap up your point by linking it to the overall question at hand: explain why your point makes Baker McKenzie attractive to you personally.

This is a 300-word answer demanding at least three distinguishing features of Baker McKenzie that made you want to apply to the firm. We suggest structuring this as three discrete paragraphs about Baker McKenzie.  You should consider commenting on its work, training and culture (in descending order of priority). The question is also phrased in such a way which indicates that Baker McKenzie wants to see the following:

●        You should be personal in your reasoning, using specific examples from your own life to back up your points; and

●        You need to demonstrate a strong understanding of what makes Baker McKenzie different to other firms.

You don’t necessarily need to specify explicitly how Baker McKenzie differs from competitors – this should be inherent in your answers.

In the first paragraph, the candidate discusses Baker McKenzie’s global presence. The candidate develops this point by identifying specific jurisdictions that Baker McKenzie operates in, as well as by stating the firm’s number of international offices. This is firm-specific evidence which tailors the candidate’s point well. When answering this question, you need specific evidence that makes Baker McKenzie stand out against other firms. If you do not do so, then your answer risks being applicable to any other firm in the market. The recruiter wants to know why you’ve chosen Baker McKenzie specifically, as opposed to elsewhere.

Then, the candidate tries to explain why cross-border collaboration is important to them. This is good because the recruiters specifically ask you why Baker McKenzie personally appeals to you. The recruiter does not want you just to list facts they already know about the firm. Instead, they want you to identify Baker McKenzie’s key distinguishing traits and why they’re important to you personally. As such, the candidate does well to write in the first-person and to pick out an experience wherein they have worked on cross-border matters.

To improve, the candidate needs to develop their argument further in two ways. Firstly, the final sentences are vague. The candidate does not go into significant detail about why they are attracted to a firm that offers “seamless international support”. Although they have made this claim and backed it up with specific evidence about the firm, the candidate does not fully explain why this matters to them. The candidate asserts instead that cross-border collaboration is important to them because they frequently move between countries, and that they would be “grateful” to be part of Baker McKenzie’s network. Secondly, it is not clear how the subsequent points follow from the first sentence. As it stands, the candidate has shoehorned in facts about Baker McKenzie’s global office network. The following points could easily apply to any other firm with a large global office network (such as White & Case), or indeed a US firm that sees cross-border collaboration between a smaller network of offices. We would want the candidate to demonstrate why Baker McKenzie’s all-encompassing/large office network appeals to them specifically.

Secondly, Baker McKenzie’s various pro bono initiatives promotes a strong sense of corporate social responsibility. Seen through the firm’s partnership with Terre des hommes to accelerate the release of children in detention during Covid-19, Baker McKenzie devotes time and resources to maintaining a civil presence, something which is especially important during these difficult times. As a volunteer at (NGO) (Country) where I work with underprivileged children, I admire the firm’s commitment to utilise their legal expertise in safeguarding children’s rights and improving their situations. Drawing from my experiences, the firm’s drive to serve the disadvantaged is appealing to me, and would provide an invaluable opportunity to contribute towards the firm’s charitable spirit.     

Feedback: Once again, the candidate does well to follow the PEEL structure. The candidate leads with a point about Baker McKenzie’s pro bono initiatives, before tailoring it by offering a specific example of their pro bono work. Then, the candidate provides their NGO work as evidence of their interest in pro bono initiatives before linking their point back to the firm. The candidate also does well to vary their sentence structures and signpost their points. This makes the candidate’s points much easier to read.

US firms typically prize pro bono efforts higher than their UK counterparts, although this does not necessarily translate to their London office or to more mid-Atlantic style firms such as Baker McKenzie.  Importantly, commercial law firms are not NGOs. You are applying to commercial businesses whose primary objectives are to make money for the partnerships. Pro bono is a positive externality, but it is far from the central focus at commercial law firms.

As such, we advise that you be cautious about making pro bono a central feature of your “why firm?” answers. You can mention it as an additional point if you have space, but the candidate should have prioritised Baker McKenzie’s commercial law strengths. We would also note that most global commercial law firms will offer pro bono work of this nature and quality. As such, it is generally harder for candidates to tailor pro bono points to the specific firm in question.

Finally, Baker McKenzie is a key innovator in the legal market. The firm’s partnership with Avvoka, and its Whitespace Legal Collab, which is the first legal lab enabling discussions involving business, law and technology, demonstrate the firm’s willingness to evolve alongside technology to efficiently meet client expectations. The exposure to disruptive technology presents learning opportunities to develop various skills, working with Baker McKenzie’s innovative spirit will therefore facilitate my progression within the legal industry.

Feedback: This paragraph focuses on Baker McKenzie’s innovative elements. Again, the candidate tailors their paragraph well by mentioning firm-specific evidence (namely Avvoka and the Whitespace Legal Collab), When you write your answers, you must always include evidence that is unique to the firm. The recruiter should not be able to swap out “Baker McKenzie” with “Hogan Lovells” or “White & Case” when reading your answers. Here, the candidate protects themselves against that risk by drilling down on specific features of Baker McKenzie’s innovations.

However, the candidate does not explain why innovative law firms personally appeal to them. This misses a fundamental part of the question. The candidate should have identified a specific experience wherein they used/appreciated technology, and then tied it back into Baker McKenzie. When answering “why firm?” questions, candidates should continually ask themselves “why?”. If you assert a claim about the firm or about yourself, you should ask why that claim is the case. Then, you must substantiate your claim with examples and explanations. Here, the candidate needs to offer insight into why Baker McKenzie’s innovative aspects appeal to them personally. However, they make various assertions without offering any substantiating explanations:

●        “Baker McKenzie’s innovative spirit will therefore facilitate my progression within the legal industry” - how?

●        “The exposure to disruptive technology presents learning opportunities”  - why? And in what sense is it “disruptive”?

While we are sympathetic to the tight word count, the candidate could have achieved this by writing more concisely in other areas of their application. For example, the candidate could have made their initial points in paragraphs 1 or 2 more concisely so that they were not just listing facts about the firm. Had the candidate stuck strictly to the PEEL structure, this paragraph would have been much better overall.

Finally, we recommend that you adopt short sentences wherever possible.  This candidate writes in long sentences, but short ones would make the same points in a more punchy style.  You’re not Hemmingway: if you can shorten or split a sentence, you should.

What sets Bates Wells apart from other firms you’re applying to?

Bates Wells stands out for its commitment not only to technical excellence, but also to social responsibility. As a City law firm specialising in supporting charities and social enterprises, training with you would mean doing work which is interesting, values-driven, and with a positive impact. 

[Feedback: This paragraph addresses the sector specialisms of the law firm, specifically charities/social enterprises. The candidate has correctly addressed a unique aspect of the firm that sets it apart from others; however, this paragraph could benefit from some additional development.

The candidate is correct to highlight the work that Bates Wells does; however, the candidate would need to explain why this kind of work appeals to them. Whilst the candidate does explain that the kind of work would be ‘interesting, values-driven, and [have] a positive impact’, they do not explain why those traits appeal to them.

To improve their answer further the candidate could provide additional specificity regarding the exact kind of work that Bates Wells does for charities (and provide an example), and then explain, with a personal example, why such work would appeal to them.]

I want to work for Bates Wells because you are at the forefront of the legal profession when it comes to tackling the climate crisis and social inequality. You don’t just pay lip service to these goals, as evidenced by your B Corp status, your Climate Programme, and the Stephen Lloyd Awards. I am also attracted by your reputation for fostering a friendly and non-elitist work culture.

[Feedback: The candidate’s paragraph broadly addresses the law firm’s stance regarding ESG/CSR (Environmental social governance/corporate social responsibility) issues. Evidently, this is something that Bates Wells seems quite passionate about; hence, it may be something that would be more important to include in this application, compared with an application to a Magic/Silver/Elite US law firm. The candidate demonstrates a decent level of research, substantiating their claim about the law firm with some specific evidence.

To improve this answer, some more evidence could have been provided regarding the firm being at the ‘forefront’ – it is always better for you to provide evidence for things rather than for you to assert them. Writing, for example, ‘[insert firm here] was ranked first for climate change responsiveness by [insert organisation here]’ says the same thing as ‘forefront of the legal profession’ and it automatically evidences that claim per se.

Furthermore, avoid informal/inappropriate writing styles such as:

●        Colloquial phrases - ‘pay lip service’

●        Contractions – ‘don’t’

●        Personal second pronoun – ‘you’

When writing an application form, you need to ensure that your writing remains formal at all times. Law firms will be assessing you on the quality of your written work, so any informality or spelling and grammar mistakes will be noticed and count against you. Hence, to improve, the candidate could have written: ‘Bates Wells does not have a superficial commitment to such causes, as evidenced by […]’.

Finally, the candidate, much like the previous paragraph, has not fully explained why they find these characteristics attractive. The candidate has “tagged on” a sentence at the end which mentions that they are attracted to a non-elitist workplace, but they have not fully explained why that is important to them, nor why Bates Wells “real” commitment to ESG/CSR is attractive.

Although you may consider such explanations or links redundant because it is “obvious”, it is actually not as straight forward as many candidates think. Though intuitively such things are attractive, law firms are looking for candidates to reflect on their own personal experiences to explain clearly why it is attractive specifically for them, namely, the candidate in question.]

I am keen to explore different areas of law, so the broad range of your expertise and the opportunity to undertake five seats during my training contract interests me. Inspired by my experience at the [redacted organisation], I am particularly excited by your public and regulatory department. Delineating the limits of public authorities’ powers and the extent of their obligations is a fascinating area of law, and I would love to learn more from the experts at Bates Wells.

Feedback: This is a decent paragraph, and the candidate has done well to stick to one point and follow it through. The candidate has highlighted a unique aspect of Bates Wells’ training contract (five seats unlike the usual four) and used a personal example to evidence her broader interests.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have developed their example further. Whilst the candidate highlights the breadth of training they may receive at the firm, the candidate then uses her example to home in one department – this does not link as well as one would hope with their original point.

Nevertheless, the candidate does attempt to link her evidence back to the firm; however, once again, the candidate could have gone further by discussing similar work that Bates Wells had done, rather than simply just alluding to the fact that Bates Wells has a public and regulatory department.]

How does BCLP align with your ambitions for your Training Contract and beyond?

The full financial integration merger between BLP and Bryan Cave in 2018 has facilitated great reach and opportunities for trainees at BCLP. Now, BCLP’s global expansion has enabled the legacy firms to knowledge-share about their respective top markets and amalgamate key practice areas.

[Feedback:The section starts well and is spaced with appropriately sized paragraphs. Second sentence could be improved by rephrasing to “BCLP’s global expansion has now...”]

BCLP’s International arbitration seat appeals to me, due to my experience in dispute resolution. An arbitration academy at [redacted], and successful mediation concerning a breach of duty of care dispute at [redacted], to settle at a figure which saved the client £1.5 million, developed my dispute resolution skills. So, BCLP’s wealth of experience in international arbitration, evidenced by George Burns and Claire Morel de Westgaver’s recognition in the ‘Legal 500 International Arbitration power list’ deems the firm an unambiguous first choice. Additionally, BCLP has experience in 20 different sets of arbitral rules, including UNCITRAL ([redacted] national arbitration law). Indeed, being an aspiring solicitor of [redacted] heritage with a desire to shape Africa’s future, researching Segun Osuntokun’s (Head of BCLP Africa group) keynote speech about international investment arbitration as a tool for growth and development in Africa, influenced me to see a long-term future for myself at the firm.

[Feedback: The paragraph is structurally sound and utilises the Point, Evidence and Explanation formula well. It explains that BCLP appeals due to arbitration, shows personal experience that is relevant to arbitration and then delves further into why BCLP is so impressive in the field, finishing off nicely with a personal touch as to why the BCLP Africa group is so enticing.

This section could be improved in a number of ways:

(i) no need to capitalise “International”,

(ii) reducing the comma usage (the second sentence is particularly hard to follow and could be improved with shorter sentences and adding more detail to the mediation/settlement experience,

(iii) writing without unnecessary sentence-starters that slow down your pace (“So,” or “Indeed,”), and

(iv) avoiding hyperbole (BCLP is good at arbitration but it’s a stretch to call them “an unambiguous first choice”).]

BCLP’s genuine commitment to diversity appeals to me. My legal placements and collaborations with musicians have taught me a [redacted] of diverse perspectives and ideas often leads to a combination of the best ideas. So, I was pleased to see the success of initiatives such as Race for Change in the BCLP's diversity and inclusion report. The legal sector is subject to continuous change and competition.

[Feedback: This paragraph answers the question posed well and highlights diversity as an important area to consider. It also showcases the candidate’s research into the firm’s diversity initiatives. In terms of improvement, starting a sentence with “So,” is not good writing (as noted above), it should be “lead” instead of “leads” and the final sentence would also have been better placed earlier in the paragraph.]

What do you find attractive about Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner's sectors/ departments and which area(s) are you interested in having exposure to in your Training Contract and why? - Max 500 words

- Firstly, BCLP balances its vast expertise across thirty offices with a culture that incorporates staff as part of one team. This allows for more depth in solutions and multi-jurisdictional deals, and requires that the firm delivers innovative and high-quality legal advice that combines global business and diplomatic insights with jurisdictional knowledge. When I worked as a supply teacher, I learned that I love responsibility, working with people, and that I thrive with intellectual challenges and finding solutions. Therefore, this quality of BCLP and what working here would entail, is part of what attracts me to the firm.

Feedback: When answering this question, we advise you to pick out three BCLP sectors, before explaining what interests you about them and why. You need to restrict yourself to three points so that you can cover each one in detail. The candidate has done that well during most of this answer. They eventually identify two interest areas, before providing thorough personal evidence and detailed examples that justify the candidate’s interest in each area. By limiting the number of practice areas, they can analyse each point in depth whilst meeting the word count comfortably.

This paragraph is decently structured. It generally follows our recommended PEE/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link). The candidate leads in with (1) their first motivational point, before (2) providing personalised evidence justifying their interest and (3) explaining/analysing how that evidence developed their interest in the point, and finally (4) they link their evidence back in with their initial point.

With that in mind, this paragraph is quite weak. Our main criticism is that it is not relevant to the question. The question specifically asks candidates to identify BCLP’s practice areas and explain their interest in them. It is not a general “Why BCLP?” question. This paragraph does not truly answer the question. Instead, the paragraph identifies generic points of interest about BCLP before making an argument on that basis. The candidate should have only written about BCLP’s practice areas, rather than telling BCLP facts it already knows about its global office count and culture.

The candidate’s reasoning is also weak in this paragraph for the following reasons: 

1. The candidate’s central point is not tailored to BCLP. Many firms in the City have a global office count of approximately 30, with a similarly seamless structure and office culture.  Reed Smith also has exactly 30 offices. This means the candidate’s first sentence could easily be swapped out with “Reed Smith balances its vast expertise across 30 offices…” and the rest of the candidate’s argument would make just as much sense.

2. The candidate’s explanation of the point is not brilliant. It’s not clear how a firm having 30 offices would create “in-depth solutions” and “innovative legal advice”. In any case, much of the candidate’s writing is generic and applicable to other global law firms.

3. It is not clear how the candidate’s experience with “responsibility” and “working with people” ties into the previous points about innovation, high-quality legal advice and an integrated global culture.

You should re-read your arguments and (ideally) get a second pair of eyes to check over your applications. This will help you make sure that your arguments are logically watertight.

As a side note, we strongly advise candidates to avoid flowery language such as “love”. We have seen candidates telling us that they “love” certain practice areas or working styles. This results in a somewhat unprofessional tone that is not appropriate for a law firm application.

- For example, the exposure to Financial Technology (fintech) that the firm provides interests me. Exposure to the fintech area during my training contract is invaluable because this area seems to only grow in influence, and I have an interest in its evolving nature. Innovations present interesting opportunities for banks, companies, and consumers alike and can be seen as part of a larger move towards digitalisation within commercial sectors. BCLP is known for its innovative fintech approach, its dedicated teams being a first amongst London commercial law firms. BCLP has a dedicated team working with blockchain applications and digital currency, which is exciting as a prospect. As a wills paralegal at [redacted law firm], I have learnt more about leveraging legal tools to streamline our workflow and increase overall turnover. Document automation software is an example of this. Through designed algorithms, I am able to produce even complex wills more accurately and efficiently, whilst accurately representing client wishes. I want to train at a firm which evolves with the sector, building my skills to provide value to clients which is why I want exposure to this area at BCLP.

Feedback: This paragraph is an improvement on the previous. First, it answers the question directly from the outset. We like that the candidate identifies a specific practice area in the first sentence, before going on to explain why that area appeals to them. The candidate also does slightly better in tailoring their reasoning to BCLP. The candidate picks out (1) that BCLP is one of the first firms with dedicated fintech teams and (2) that it uniquely specialises in cryptocurrency/blockchain. This helps differentiate BCLP from other law firms in the fintech space.

Another positive point is that the candidate offers higher-quality evidence. We are given a specific and relevant example, wherein the candidate explains how they developed an interest in legal technology before providing a neat link back to BCLP’s fintech practice. This is the level of specificity and relevance that you should aim for in your own answers. If you do not have paralegal or other relevant legal work experience, then you should consider applying evidence from (1) other work experience, (2) open days/vacation schemes and (3) university societies/extra-curriculars (in descending order of priority).

The candidate should nonetheless have improved on the following points:

1. The candidate’s reasoning is still not quite tailored enough to BCLP. BCLP are not the only firm with expertise in cryptocurrency and blockchain. As such, the candidate would have needed to provide specific examples demonstrating the unique elements of BCLP’s work. If you are going to write about a firm’s fintech practice, then you should think about (1) what tech the firm specialises in and (2) whether it has a regulatory or transactional tilt.

2. Though the candidate’s example is good, their explanation of it is weak. The candidate tells us that they have experience with legal tech, but they do not explain why they found this interesting. You need to make sure that your evidence fully explains your original motivational point.

As a minor point, the candidate should have written in the active voice wherever possible. This would make the candidate’s writing more assertive (and so persuasive in the recruiter’s eyes). For instance:

“The exposure to Financial Technology (fintech) that the firm provides interests me”.

… should be:

“I am interested in the Financial Technology (fintech) work that BCLP offers me.”.

You should incorporate the active voice in all your writing. It’s an easy way to improve the quality and persuasiveness of your applications.

- The environmental and energy sector is another area I want to be exposed to. BCLP has more than 30 years of experience here representing clients in various matters including approvals and project development. Further, BCLP has received National Tier 1 (Best Law Firms, 2018) and Tier 3 (Chambers UK, Legal 500 UK 2019) rankings, exemplifying the firm’s excellence and expertise. Climate change and sustainability are pertinent challenges that affect every aspect of businesses and markets, as well as the world at large. I chose to take part in [redacted environmental programme] last year to understand its commercial effects from its foundations. Here, I notably planned a social action campaign, where I handled its internal organisation. As the relevancy of environmental, social and governance issues grows, working with clients to facilitate environmental risk management and compliance with changing regulations becomes increasingly vital. I believe collaborating with businesses can drive lasting change and contribute to a more sustainable future. Being a highly technical and developing field with a lot of nuances, the firm’s evident presence in the area ensures consistent growth in my experience and skills while working with the team during my contract. Therefore, I am interested in exposure to this area during my training contract.

Feedback: This paragraph goes slightly further in tailoring itself to BCLP. The candidate improves by showing some specific research into BCLP’s rankings/tier placements, which in turn supports the candidate’s argument that BCLP are uniquely good in the environmental/energy sector. You should aim for similar levels of specificity in your own writing. If you can identify specific awards, statistics and precise details, then the recruiter will be persuaded by your answer far more easily.

That said, the candidate should have improved this answer in two regards:

1. The candidate’s reasoning is still not quite specific enough. If you look at the Chambers UK Environment rankings, you will see that Dentons, Latham & Watkins and Linklaters all occupy Band 1 (whereas BCLP is now Band 2). This means that the candidate’s argument could apply just as easily to any of these firms. It is not enough to cite Chambers rankings/tiers – you need to offer specific evidence that demonstrates BCLP’s unique activities in this sector (such as matters/named deals of interest).

2. The candidate’s evidence is quite outdated (2018/2019). We would expect there to be more up-to-date rankings available for the candidate by this point. A cynical recruiter might even wonder if the candidate cherrypicked evidence to support their argument. For avoidance of doubt, you should always use evidence/research that is no more than 2 years old.

As a minor point, we would expect to see some reference to BCLP’s Real Estate practice in this answer. Real Estate is BCLP’s greatest profit driver in London, with much of the office’s work pivoting around this sector. We find it quite unusual that the candidate decided not to reference real estate. This leaves the answer feeling somewhat incomplete – just as we would be surprised by a Kirkland/Weil application that made no mention of private equity.

 Why have you chosen to apply to Bristows? (250 Words)

My attraction to the firm is based on:

1. Bristows’s leading IP practice. According to the Legal 500, Bristows’ ranks tier 1 in its IP practice. My interest in this practice was sparked during my internship at [redacted law firm], where I found that my creativity would be welcomed in such a practice area.

[Feedback: The candidate has nicely split their answer into two clear sections. The first section clearly addresses one of Bristows’ more unique aspects, with the Legal 500 used as evidence to back up the answer. For answers like these, as the candidate has demonstrated, use a PEE/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis link). Beginning your answer with a clear ‘point’ and following it up with a bespoke, personal example, immediately sets your answer up as clear and relevant.

Be mindful of spelling and grammar norms.  Bristows ends with an s; therefore, to indicate the possessive you should write, Bristows’, not Bristows’s. Law firms will be assessing your spelling and grammar throughout your application, and you will be marked down for any errors.  You should note that international students are not given any exemption and will have to demonstrate equally correct writing.

Finally, be careful that you are answering the question. The question is asking you why you are attracted to Bristows. Although it is excellent that the candidate is creative and that creativity might be welcomed at the firm, this is true of nigh all law firms. Hence, this answer may end up becoming more like a competency/’why me’ answer than a ‘why firm’ answer. So, whilst the content of the answer might be valid, it will not be relevant to the question asked.]

At [redacted law firm], I worked on a deal concerning a company that had severe cash-flow issues. The company was amidst merger talks for a subsidiary that owned a specific patent and feared that the deal would fall through as a result of this. To solve this, I proposed a creative solution that combines the sale of its own non-primary subsidiary and mezzanine financing to meet its debts and fund the acquisition. My mentor found my suggestion enticing and used it.

[Feedback: Here the candidate does well to flesh out their example given in the first paragraph. The candidate provides some expository context to the example, before demonstrating how it evidences her creativity.

However, this example does not properly answer the question. As aforementioned, this question requires you to discuss specific aspects of the law firm and explain why you are attracted to them. The candidate has a very tenuous link between ‘creativity’ and Bristows’ IP department, and ‘creativity’ could be applied to any firm in any department. The candidate’s deviation from the question is highlighted by a lack of a link back to Bristows. When you write your answers, adhere to the PEE/AL structure and link your example and explanation back to the question at hand.]

2. Bristows’s inclusive culture and wide-spread and independent training. Bristows only takes in ten trainees per intake, thus forming a ‘tight-knit’ and inclusive culture which was noted by Chamber Student UK. Having been a member of several sporting teams, this appeals to me as I enjoy working in a group and I have developed strong communication and collaborative skills that will allow me to prosper at the firm. Additionally, the firm offers independent yet supportive training. This is ideal as having started my own company at 19, I am used to high levels of responsibility and therefore, I am already equipped with the necessary skills that would be expected of trainees.

[Feedback: The candidate does well to evidence their claims about Bristows’ training and culture via reference to Chambers Student. Make sure to always provide some substantiation for your claims about a law firm as it not only lends credence to your answers but also demonstrates the time you have taken to research the firm (and, therefore, your motivation to train there).

If possible, try and find more unique evidence sources – whilst there is nothing wrong with the Legal 500, Chambers Student, Lex 100, and others similar, these are often covered by the majority of candidates. If you can attend firm-specific events or get quotes from trainees/associates/partners who work at the firm that would aid the specificity and uniqueness of your justificatory evidence and make your motivation really stand out.

The candidate links her claims about the firm back to personal examples to explain why exactly the firm’s traits are attractive for her in particular. However, the candidate could expand her explanation about how she has developed the skills highlighted in their example.  We would always recommend depth over breadth.]

Why have you chosen to apply to Bristows? What attracted you to our firm?

(250 words)

I was initially attracted to Bristows due to my interest in intellectual property (IP). Having written my legal research at BPP Law School on IP, my interest in this area grew as I experienced it first hand at [redacted] Law’s IP practice, where it was my role was to see if anyone had infringed any of our client’s trademarks and drafted letters to those who have had infringed it. Bristows has a Band 1 ranking in IP with prestigious clientele such as Google, the Guardian and the Financial Times, in which I am certain I would be working alongside leading industry experts in this field on complex cases. With a compulsory seat in patent litigation, I would look forward to the opportunity of experiencing a wide variety of IP work spanning life sciences and technology, and getting a deep understanding of this area.

Feedback: The candidate has cleanly divided their answer into two clear sections. We always recommend doing this where the answer offers limited word counts. You should divide your answer into two in-depth (and roughly equal) paragraphs, with the first dedicated to Bristows’ work and the second dedicated to Bristows’ training. The candidate broadly follows that structure here.

The candidate begins by addressing Bristows’ unique strengths in IP. The candidate subsequently uses clear and specific evidence demonstrating not only their personal interest in IT but also their knowledge of Bristows’ own strengths in IP. For answers like these, we recommend that you adopt a PEE/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link).

Doing so will set up every element of your answer clearly. The candidate has roughly followed this structure here.

That said, the candidate needs to tailor their point to Bristows much more closely. Bristows is not the only City law firm that practises Band 1 IP, let alone IP more widely. Bristows will also not be the only firm advising clientele such as Google, the FT and the Guardian.  As a rule, you should check that your point is well-tailored enough by replacing the firm’s name with a direct competitor. If the answer still makes sense, then you have not been specific enough. For example:

●        “I was initially attracted to Bristows due to my interest in intellectual property (IP).”

This can just as easily be replaced with:

●        “I was initially attracted to Bird & Bird due to my interest in intellectual property (IP).”

If you can do this, then your point isn’t specific enough.

Furthermore, it is not enough simply to name-drop Bristows’ clients and state that it is in Band 1. The recruiters already know this. Instead, you need to identify specific examples of a matter/client Bristows has worked on and explain why these appeal to you personally, whilst using your own personal examples to back this up. This will convince the recruiter that you have researched Bristows thoroughly and understand how it differs from competing firms. The candidate also shoehorns in Bristows’ work in life sciences/technology without ever explaining why these appeal to the candidate.

The candidate would also need to outline what they find interesting about IP. While the candidate gives a great example of their experience in IP, they never quite explain what they found interesting about IP or why it relates to Bristows. You must always read through your answers sentence-by-sentence. If your writing does not add value to your argument, then it must be re-worked.

Also, the candidate makes another grammatical mistake. “First hand” should be “firsthand”.

I am also attracted to the client secondment opportunity Bristows provides, as over two-thirds of Bristows’ trainees went on a client secondment this year. Having this 3-month opportunity to second at a company like Bristows’ client Google for example would be insightful, as this would enable me to understand the commercial and legal needs of the company to a greater extent. Furthermore, Bristows small trainee intake appeals to me as this would encourage early responsibility and exposure to Bristow’s work and clients. This would ultimately help me to become a more well-rounded lawyer by allowing me to form relationship with clients and polish my skills faster.

Feedback: The candidate follows a reasonably good structure here. They state their points straight away, before developing their points with further details about Bristows’ client opportunities and trainee intake.

However, the two points lack depth and meaningful explanations. Starting with the first, the candidate states facts about Bristows’ client secondments but does not explain why these appeal to the candidate. It is never enough simply to state that you are “attracted” to a feature of a firm’s training contract. You must always explain in full why this feature appeals to you, whilst using personal examples and evidence to back up every explanation you give. The candidate’s reasoning also does not demonstrate proper understanding of client secondments. While it is true that the candidate would “understand the company’s commercial and legal needs to a greater extent”, it is not clear what the candidate means by “greater extent” or why this is important to them. Furthermore, this first point is not tailored enough to Bristows. Many City law firms will offer trainees secondments to prestigious clients. It is not enough for the candidate simply to name-drop Google. Instead, they must explain why Bristows’ opportunities specifically appeal to them.

The second point suffers from the same problems. It is not self-explanatory how a small trainee intake “encourages early responsibility and exposure”, nor is it clear why these features appeal to the candidate. Furthermore, countless City law firms offer small trainee intakes. The candidate would need to drill down on this feature much more clearly, by explaining the unique attributes of Bristows’ training structure and why these appeal to them.

The candidate could have improved this answer overall by focusing on only one unique feature of Bristows’ training contract, before elaborating on it in depth with specific evidence and personal examples.

Why are you applying to Burges Salmon for a vacation scheme? (150 words max)*

My interactions with Burges Salmon, at events such as LawCareersNetLIVE and the firm’s ‘Food for Thought’ presentations, have highlighted to me that Burges Salmon is the best mix of high-quality work, culture and location that a law firm can offer. Completing the vacation scheme at Burges Salmon will offer me the opportunity to experience invaluable first-hand exposure to the firm’s high-profile client list, including companies such as the BBC and Starbucks. Additionally, I would be able to experience the firm’s collaborative culture, unique to Burges Salmon with it being an independent firm with the majority of its solicitors all in one office.

[Feedback: This kind of question warrants a response that focuses on two key elements: (1) why the candidate wants to work at Burges Salmon, and (2) why the candidate wants a vacation scheme at Burges Salmon. Although these two points may have similar responses, there are some subtle differences.

Therefore, a good answer will explain what attracts them to Burges Salmon and what specifically Burges Salmon offers as part of their vacation scheme that they find appealing.

The candidate does well to bring in some evidence of their past interactions with the firm. Citing presentations and events are great ways to prove that you have garnered your information from reputable sources and demonstrate your commitment to the firm. If possible, you should use quotes and the names of individuals you heard from or spoke with.

The candidate has also attempted to address why they would like a vacation scheme at the firm. They have homed in on the fact that such a scheme would allow them to work with some high-profile clients and to experience what it would be like to work at the firm (concerning its collaborative culture). The candidate employs a nice piece of evidence to substantiate the latter point by mentioning the firm’s office structure – this further improves their answer.

To improve, the candidate could have employed more specific evidence to substantiate their claims. Although the candidate has used some decent examples, they could have been more detailed. For example, the candidate could have briefly elaborated on how they would have garnered ‘invaluable first-hand exposure to the firm’s high-profile client list’ by citing examples of the kinds of opportunities or work given to vacation scheme students. Similarly, the candidate could have given more detail on what they mean by ‘high-quality work, culture and location’. All law firms will claim to have the best of these three traits. Hence, the candidate should have elaborated on these traits and given Burges Salmon-specific examples to back up such claims.]

As Energy, Power and Utilities is one of Burges Salmon’s award-winning specialist sectors, the firm is aligned well with my practice area interests, and having the opportunity to explore the pioneering and ground-breaking energy deals Burges Salmon’s lawyers are known for would be an exciting and invaluable opportunity.

[Feedback:This is a relatively short paragraph, which is understandable given the overly restrictive limit of 150 words. Although we are sympathetic to such constraints, you must ensure that all of your sections stand up to scrutiny and follow a ‘Point, Evidence, Explanation/Analysis, Link’ (PEE/AL) structure. If your answers fail to do so, you may risk coming across as too vague.

The candidate does well to highlight one of Burges Salmon’s specialisms and link it back to themselves. Clearly, if you have a particular interest concerning a practice area or industry, then the opportunity of a vacation scheme with the prospect of exploring such an interest would be very attractive.

However, the candidate could improve their answer by being more specific concerning why they have an interest in ‘energy, power and utilities’. You should be wary of making unsubstantiated claims, especially when it comes to yourself. The recruiter does not know you personally, and, therefore, you must justify any and all claims about yourself with demonstrative examples.

Furthermore, the candidate could have proved some specific evidence to justify their statement of ‘the pioneering and ground-breaking energy deals Burges Salmon’s lawyers are known for’. To elevate this answer, the candidate could have cited a transaction that the firm had recently completed and described why it is interesting to them and why they would like to get involved with transactions like it.

Finally, this paragraph is actually just one long sentence. When you write your answers, you should be careful not to write overly long sentences. Such structures make it harder for the recruiter to understand what you are saying. Short, snappy sentences can be far more effective at communicating what you would like to say.]

Why have you chosen to apply to Charles Russell Speechlys? (200 words)

Charles Russell Speechlys’ diverse culture with a focus on engaging with people, not robots, is a major differentiator from other firms. This is evidenced by your firm's strong reputation in your core sectors, as shown by the significant number of high rankings in Legal500, and the quality work, for example advising Russian oligarch Arkady Rotenberg on the financial aspects of his £3 billion divorce.

[Feedback: This paragraph showcases the fact that the candidate took their research into Charles Russell Speechlys beyond a superficial level by consulting its profile on Legal500 and providing a concrete example of a matter undertaken by the firm.

Although this is a successful application, the candidate’s point regarding the firm’s “diverse culture” leaves much to be desired. Discussing a firm’s culture is a hit-or-miss strategy. Given that it is unlikely that you have spent a considerable amount of time at the firm, you cannot truly know what it is like to work there. Therefore, discussing the firm’s culture relative to information available online or in marketing materials will probably be perceived as a bit of a stretch, if not disingenuous. However, discussing aspects of the firm’s culture relative to your attendance at open days or interactions with firm representatives is generally good practice.

We would also advise against using the second person in your answers (e.g., “your firm”). We would also advise against using colloquial language in your answers (e.g., “people, not robots”) because it may be perceived as unprofessional or blazé by the reader.

Further, the international reach of your firm provides the chance to work with businesses from a range of cultures and backgrounds, creating exciting and intellectually stimulating work. The dedication to doing things differently is inspiring not only to potential recruits but also to new clients, meaning the firm is likely to grow even stronger in the near future.

[Feedback: This paragraph correctly identifies the corollaries of global mobility (e.g., interacting with people from different backgrounds), which suggests that the candidate possesses a reasonable understanding of what working as a solicitor at a firm like Charles Russell Speechlys may entail. This suggestion is reinforced by candidate’s reference to the firm’s potential for growth in the near future; by connecting the dots between the firm’s competitive edge (the firm’s “dedication to doing things differently”) and client service, the candidate displays an understanding of the business of law firms.

Nevertheless, the overall answer is not sufficiently tailored to Charles Russell Speechlys, such that it could be copied and pasted it into another application with relative ease. We would have liked to see a concrete example in support of the candidate’s discussion of the firm’s international reach. At the same time, parts of the answer are not sufficiently clear to the reader. For instance, we would have liked to know what exactly the candidate meant in stating that the firm is dedicated to “doing things differently”.

Finally, the client contact time offered at your firm entices me as it would facilitate a better understanding of the clients business, making me a better and more well-rounded solicitor. With an 88% retention rate of newly qualified solicitors in 2019, Charles Russell Speechlys is clearly a firm that challenges yet supports its trainees which greatly appeals to me.

[Feedback: Client contact time can serve as a great point of analysis in an answer regarding your motivation for applying to a given firm. In this case, the candidate does well to explain the benefits that solicitors can derive from having direct contact with clients even if they might seem obvious. As far as possible, we would recommend that you take the reader through your thought process when expressing your interest in a particular aspect because, in doing so, you showcase your understanding of the career.

Although it is generally good practice to cite facts and figures in support of your claims, you should avoid trainee retention rates. Not only do they vary from year to year (sometimes to a considerable degree), but they also do not tell the reader anything in and of themselves (as opposed to e.g., the number of awards a firm has won or the number of offices it has).

Instead of citing the firm’s retention rate, the candidate could have used the word count to explain how the firm “challenges yet supports its trainees” and why that “greatly appeals” to them.

Why have you chosen to apply to Charles Russell Speechlys? (350)

• How have you researched the firm?

• How has our work captured your interest?

• Why have you applied to this particular office location?

My initial interest in Charles Russell Speechlys began with a conversation with Christian Massey at the University of [redacted Russell Group university]’s law fair, where I gained a valuable insight into the varied nature of the work that the firm undertakes. We discussed Christian’s work within the private client sector, specifically private property which appeals to me because of the client-facing role I would enjoy, even as a trainee. Similarly, the London office’s leading property litigation sector also appeals because I gained an insight into this area during a work placement at [redacted law firm] LLP. The firm acknowledges the importance of encouraging exposure in multiple practice areas, and it is highly appealing that Charles Russell Speechlys provides excellent services in a range of sectors.

Feedback: This paragraph demonstrates that the candidate took their research into Charles Russell Speechlys beyond a superficial level by attending a law fair and speaking with a firm representative directly. The candidate also does well to prioritise CRS’ practice area strengths as their first points. We always advise candidates to discuss (1) the firm’s work and (2) the firm’s training in descending order of priority, with discussions of culture/pro bono being a lesser priority. This is because your discussions of the firm’s practice area strengths get to the core of the firm’s business. You will demonstrate not only that you appreciate the firm’s business operations, but also that you will stay with the firm in the long term. The candidate does particularly well in identifying a specific experience they had with CRS, before explaining what they learned about the unique features of CRS’ private client practice (namely that they specialise in private property). This demonstrates the candidate’s understanding about what makes CRS’ work unique, as compared to firms with similar private client strengths.

However, the flaw with this paragraph is that the candidate prioritises breadth over depth. The candidate ends the paragraph by asserting a separate interest in CRS’ property litigation practice. This means that the candidate does not have enough space to explain/evidence their interest in either area in depth. For example, the candidate asserts that they are interested in property work for private clients because it is “client-facing”, but it is unclear what the candidate means by this or why it appeals to them. Furthermore, it is not sufficiently well-tailored to private client work. All areas of law are client-facing in some capacity. Instead, the candidate should have focused on private client/private property work and explained their interest in it by using specific examples.

I followed up this introduction with further research on the internet and in discussion with James at the 2019 LawCareers.net LIVE event. The firm’s lean composition facilitates a unique training opportunity. A modest intake means trainees are vested with considerable responsibility, particularly with regards to client interaction. James explained how this exposure is complemented by a unique people-focused culture. This is supported by excellent individualised supervision and a practical learning environment. I worked in a similar arrangement at RAC and the ability to learn through open communication channels, instantaneous feedback and passive observation were fundamental to my professional development.

Feedback:  Once again, the candidate demonstrates detailed research into the firm by meeting a firm representative at the 2019 LawCareers.net LIVE event. The candidate then identifies a specific feature of CRS, namely its lean composition and “modest” trainee intake, before outlining how this leads to high-value responsibilities as a trainee. As such, the candidate demonstrates reasonably good awareness of what life as a CRS trainee might entail.

Nevertheless, the candidate’s point is not sufficiently tailored to CRS. Many firms in the City offer a small-medium trainee intake with early responsibilities. As such, the candidate’s point could be copied and pasted into another application form with relative ease. The recruiters would need to see a concrete example in support of the argument that CRS trainees receive more responsibilities due to the intake size. Furthermore, the candidate is unclear on what they mean by a “unique people-focused culture”. Discussions of a firm’s culture are hit-or-miss. Unless you have previously spent considerable amounts of time at a firm, you will not know what it is truly like to work there. Therefore, discussing culture is best avoided unless you have attended an open day or spent considerable time speaking with a firm representative.

As a minor point, the candidate should have addressed “James” by their full name so that the recruiters are clear on which “James” is being talked about.

Charles Russell Speechlys’s global span and the cross-jurisdictional nature of private client work resonates with me. This practice area can necessitate extensive international collaboration and the firm facilitates this through a network of global offices. This is exemplified by Topland Group’s recent acquisition of a London property, in which security was taken from Lux and Hong Kong entities. The firm was able to utilise its cross-jurisdictional teams to deliver financing solutions in a particularly short timeframe. As well as contributing to the varied nature of the work, differing standards of national law pose additional complexity. This enhances the sense of satisfaction that follows from fulfilling a client’s objectives. I would enjoy collaborating with colleagues overseas, experiencing the entire trajectory of a deal and the challenges such work presents.

Feedback: This paragraph is an improvement on the previous. Firstly, the candidate leads their argument by concisely stating their point. We know from the outset that the candidate finds CRS’ multi-jurisdictional private client work appealing. Then, the candidate elaborates on their point by highlighting a specific case drawing upon CRS’ global network and explains why this interested them. The candidate also does well to highlight the corollaries of global mobility (namely that you can take on complex cross-border work), which illustrates reasonable understanding of working at CRS might entail.

However, we would note that the candidate needed to be clearer on why they chose CRS’ London office. CRS explicitly asks why you have settled on your chosen office location. As such, the candidate would have needed a convincing explanation for their choice of office.

What is motivating you toward a career at Cooley? (300) (296)

To fund my PGDL, I spent the past year working at [redacted], an expert network which assists companies and investors with commercial due diligence. I particularly enjoyed working with venture capital funds and start-ups. I am therefore interested in Cooley’s market-leading Emerging Companies and Venture Capital practices. It would be particularly satisfying to advise companies through the different stages of their life cycle. Working with innovative clients, often from their inception, demonstrates the firm’s ability to future-proof itself. I wish to work at a firm that will continue to gain market share and work on the most important mandates.

Feedback: When answering “why firm?” questions, we always advise candidates to identify no more than three motivational points. This will allow the candidates to write about a wide range of points without compromising on quality/depth. These points should all follow the PEEL/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link). The candidate follows that structure reasonably well for most of this answer. However, they spread themselves too thinly by identifying 4 points. This means the candidate must compromise on quality/depth of analysis at times in order to meet the word count.

Starting with this first paragraph, the candidate has done well by discussing Cooley’s practice areas from the outset. This is a convincing reason because it gets to the core of Cooley’s business activities. Once the candidate deals with Cooley’s work in full, they go on to discuss their separate interest in Cooley’s structure and training approach. We always advise candidates to follow a similar approach. You should discuss (1) the firm’s work, (2) the firm’s training/team structure and (3) the firm’s culture in descending order of priority.

The candidate also demonstrates a strong understanding of how Venture Capital/Emerging Companies practices work. They identify a unique feature of VC/emerging companies, before explaining precisely what interests them about it. This demonstrates that the candidate has thought seriously about the practice areas that interest them, before targeting their approach to law firms accordingly. 

The candidate should have improved in the following ways:

1. The structure is quite messy. Rather than leading their answer with a personal example, they should have stated their reason for Cooley from the outside. They would then provide personalised evidence/explanations later in the answer, in line with PEEL/AL. This would have made the candidate’s writing more persuasive and easier to follow overall.

2. The candidate’s writing is not tailored enough to Cooley. It is not enough to assert that Cooley is “market-leading in this area” – many law firms lead the market in this area, such as Goodwin and Covington. The candidate needed to explain specifically what interests them about Cooley’s work in this field.

Supporting commercial due diligence on venture-backed companies at [redacted] required creative solutions, as they were either in nascent industries or poised to disrupt established ones. Cooley's focus on early-stage clients puts it at the forefront of legal developments; for example, by helping to set the definition of 'sharing economy companies’ in the US whilst acting for Turo. I am excited at the prospect of working on precedent-setting matters.

Feedback: The candidate improves on the previous paragraph somewhat. They start to tighten their analysis by focusing on Cooley’s client roster and overall strategy. In turn, this paragraph is better tailored towards Cooley than the previous.

However, the candidate’s structure is still weak in this paragraph. They seem to make two separate points, with one being about their work in due diligence and another being about Cooley’s work for early-stage clients. It is not quite clear how these two points tie together. It is also unclear what the candidate finds interesting about the prospect of working on “precedent-setting matters”, nor is it clear what they found interesting about Turo or how that leads back into their wider interest in Cooley. In your own answers, you need to make sure that your points are fully explained and analysed. It is insufficient simply to assert your interest in a fact about your law firm.

Cooley stands out from other US law firms in London due to its multidisciplinary strength. Having experienced contentious work at a commercial chambers in London and at a German court, I am interested in Cooley’s Litigation practice. The firm is distinguished by its leadership in areas such as Product Liability, representing Whirlpool during the Grenfell inquiry.

Feedback: This paragraph can be commended for its effort to distinguish Cooley from other US law firms in the London market. This is the level of precision you need to aim for in your motivational answers. It is not enough for you to explain why one firm interests you in general – you need to explain why that firm stands out to you against its competitors. For instance, if you apply to a Magic Circle firm then you should explain why it stands out to you against other Magic Circle firms.

However, this paragraph is weak in the following regards:

1. Nearly every US firm has “multidisciplinary strengths” of some kind. Even private equity-centric firms (such as Weil) will often have exceptional strengths in other transactional and regulatory practices, such as restructuring or antitrust. As such, the candidate should have explained (1) what they meant by this and (2) why that developed their interest in Cooley as a result.

2. It is unclear how the candidate’s personal example ties in with Cooley, particularly as the candidate worked at a chambers rather than a law firm. The candidate would have needed to explain what they found interesting about this, before analysing how that ties in with Cooley’s litigation strengths.

3. The candidate name-drops Cooley’s Product Liability practice (and a client/matter from that practice), without ever explaining what interested them about it or why. As a rule, you should never just name-drop deals and matters for the sake of it. You should always explain specifically why they interest you and how they develop your argument as a result.

I am attracted to Cooley's culture of giving trainees real responsibility early on, reflecting the firm's lean business model. I have always enjoyed proactively seeking out more responsibility, such as taking on the Student Director role for [redacted university legal advice clinic]. The firm also offers an inclusive and supportive culture. I am particularly impressed by Cooley's refusal to give in to Tesla's demands to dismiss an associate. This demonstrates the firm's commitment to its people.

Feedback: This paragraph pivots away from the firm’s work and towards its training contract/overall structure. The candidate does well to focus on objective factors about the firm’s training/culture. Commendably, the candidate also tries to use an objective example in Tesla to try and support their points. When you discuss training/culture, you should only focus on objective features (such as trainee intake or team structure) rather than subjective cultural points. This is because it is harder for you to convince recruiters of your interest in subjective cultural points unless you have actually worked for the firm. By comparison, it is far easier to provide convincing analysis on the firm’s objective features and structure. 

However, this paragraph should have been improved in the following ways:

1. The central point is not quite tailored enough to Cooley. Most (if not all) firms will offer trainees responsibility from the get-go. You will often be staffed on matters straight away at all law firms, with an expectation that you will handle important administrative points and maintain trackers/checklists for clients. As such, the candidate would have needed to drill down on Cooley’s unique training features and why this appeals to them.

2. The point about Cooley’s “inclusive and supportive” culture is also not tailored enough, as many firms will boast about having the same kind of culture. You will rarely find a firm describing itself as anti-inclusive and unsupportive.

3. The Tesla example does not go far enough in tailoring either of these points. The candidate does not offer any context or insight into why Cooley stood by its associate, which in turn makes it difficult to understand how this example highlights Cooley’s “commitment to its people”.

Please explain why you have decided to pursue a career as a solicitor and what has attracted you to Debevoise?

Feedback: We would recommend splitting your answer into two paragraphs of (roughly) equal length, with one paragraph explaining your motivation for pursuing a career as a solicitor and the other paragraph explaining your motivation for applying to the firm. In this case, the candidate has taken a different approach, which involves focusing on one part of the prompt at the expense of the other. Notwithstanding the fact that their application was ultimately successful, we would not recommend following their approach if you want to hedge your bets.

Personally, I have found that to understand the inner workings of law on a global cross-jurisdictional scale is to effectively understand the functioning of the global markets across all industries. This variety of intellectually challenging work makes law extremely riveting in a way that few other domains can offer. It is for this reason that I was initially pushed to become a solicitor.

Feedback: The candidate addresses the first part of the prompt by sharing their motivation for pursuing a career as a commercial solicitor. Although the prompt refers to “a career as a solicitor” rather than “a career as a commercial solicitor”, Debevoise & Plimpton specialises in commercial law, such that the candidate is not necessarily mistaken in focusing on it. However, the candidate does not express their motivation for pursuing such a career in the most persuasive manner. To take this answer to the next level, the candidate could have started the paragraph by closely mirroring the wording of the prompt; this would have allowed the reader to anticipate and follow their train of thought more easily. At the same time, the candidate could have dedicated more of the word count to explaining their choice of career, which would have enabled them to use more specific language and make their answer appear more genuine.

Debevoise’s small teams and emphasis on on-the-job learning immediately makes it stand out as somewhere that I would receive the highest standard of exposure, but also somewhere that would allow for higher levels of autonomy and responsibility at an earlier level. I believe my entrepreneurial and pragmatic approach would allow me to hit the ground running at Debevoise & Plimpton.

Feedback: The candidate addresses the second part of the prompt by sharing their motivation for applying to Debevoise & Plimpton. They correctly identify the perks of training at a US-heritage commercial law firm with a small trainee intake. To tailor this answer to Debevoise & Plimpton, the candidate could have discussed the firm’s Associate Mentor Programme, as well as the firm’s emphasis on continuing professional development (CPE) and continuing legal education (CLE). Nonetheless, the candidate does well to draw a link between the training offered by the firm and their own qualities. To make this answer more persuasive, the candidate could have invoked a personal example or anecdote that illustrates their “entrepreneurial and pragmatic approach”. Such examples or anecdotes are paramount because they lend credibility to your claims and make your answers stand out as authentic; as a rule of thumb, they should come from your extra-curricular activities, positions of responsibility or work experiences.

Having the opportunity to study both civil and common law systems has propelled my desire to train in a firm with a strong global outlook, where I can utilise & expand my knowledge of international affairs in dealing with cross-jurisdictional matters. I aspire to train in a firm where I could utilise my competencies in Chinese business, language and culture. Debevoise's strength and presence in the Asian market is very exciting and I know this would lead to very interesting complex work.

Feedback: The candidate correctly implies that Debevoise & Plimpton presents a “strong global outlook”. To make this answer more persuasive, the candidate could have explicitly stated the foregoing and justified their claim with the fact the firm is frequently engaged to undertake cross-border matters and/ or with the fact that the firm has ten overseas offices working within integrated global practices. Nonetheless, the candidate does well to tie their motivation for training at such a globally oriented firm with their experience of engaging with multiple legal systems as part of their academic studies; this lends credibility to their claims and increases the authenticity of their overall answer.

Moreover, the candidate correctly points out that Debevoise & Plimpton possesses market-leading expertise throughout Asia. Echoing the previous comment, the candidate could have presented facts, statistics, accolades or examples in support of their claim, all of which are available on the firm’s website; not only would this have made their answer more persuasive, but it would have also been a clever way to showcase their research into the firm. Once again, the candidate does well to draw a link between their interest in Debevoise & Plimpton’s “strength and presence” throughout Asia and their own knowledge of “Chinese business, language and culture”.

The possibility to train in a firm with such a focus on business development, combined with unparalleled transatlantic private equity expertise, makes Debevoise & Plimpton somewhere that I believe I could develop best as a solicitor, both within a team and in an autonomous capacity.

Feedback: The candidate correctly points out that Debevoise & Plimpton is known for its unrivalled expertise in transatlantic private equity matters. To make their answer stand out, the candidate could have succinctly explained why such matters are particularly appealing to them and could have omitted the blanket statement that the firm is “somewhere that [they] believe [they] could develop best as a solicitor, both within a team and in an autonomous capacity”. Although such a statement sounds nice, it adds little to no value to the overall answer because it is inherently vague. 

What do you hope to get out of a career at a Firm like ours?

I hope to be able to come to work as a trainee knowing that I am going to be challenged, both intellectually and in terms of the level of responsibility I am given. I want to undertake a training contract which will expose me to a dynamic legal career, but also that would allow for higher levels of autonomy at an earlier level. I know that Debevoise & Plimpton's ethos would allow me to do this in a cooperative and open environment.

I aspire to be exposed to a broad variety of challenging cases which would incorporate large international & cross-jurisdictional elements. In the same vein, I aim to be part of a highly collaborative environment, therefore allowing me to develop and learn from those within my team while being exposed to clients and high quality work.

In summary, I want to train somewhere that will allow me to become a leader in my chosen field. For this, I know that it is important to work somewhere that you can be treated as more than a trainee, whilst also being able to learn from market leaders in various sectors. Debevoise & Plimpton would provide me with the best opportunity to develop my skills and knowledge as a solicitor and I know that my enthusiasm, academic ability and hands-on approach would allow me to really succeed and contribute during the training contract and later on in my career.

Feedback: This answer is effective because the candidate expresses their professional aspirations clearly and aligns them with the offering of a US-heritage commercial law firm such as Debevoise & Plimpton. They do well to focus on the high quality of the work that would be available to them, the training that they would receive, as well as the collaborative working environment. To tailor this answer to Debevoise & Plimpton, the candidate could have given particular examples of the firm’s deals, clients, training practices, etc. They could have also included some of the buzzwords that the firm uses in its recruitment materials, such as its emphasis on well-roundedness. Otherwise, “Debevoise & Plimpton” could easily be replaced with “Skadden” or the like, without impacting the meaning or coherence of the answer as a whole.

Please explain why you want to pursue a career as a commercial solicitor and why you would like to practice at Dechert. (300 words)

I am impressed with Dechert’s strong commitment to diversity to the legal profession. As a member of both Rare and Aspiring Solicitors, this is important to me. The firm has been awarded with a Commendation for Diversity Award (LawCareers.Net Awards 2019) and the firm’s internal Inclusion & Diversity Committee demonstrates Dechert’s open and inclusive culture, which I believe I am able to thrive in.

[Feedback: This question is a challenging one to respond to given the word limit and the demand of answering ‘why commercial law?’ and ‘why Dechert?’. As the candidate has done, we would suggest that you split the answer into three 100-word paragraphs, or two 150-word paragraphs.

Furthermore, make sure to employ a clear PEE/AL structure: ‘point’, ‘evidence’, ‘explanation/analysis’, ‘link’. The candidate’s response has employed this structure: they have led with a clear point, and backed it up with some evidence. The candidate has also, to an extent, explained why this point matters to them. The result of this is that the candidate’s answer is very easy to read. Each sentence naturally flows from the previous one, and the reader does not need to infer anything to have the answer make sense.

To improve, the candidate could have further developed their argument regarding why diversity matters to them (beyond just being a candidate from a diverse background) and provided some more substantial evidence regarding Dechert’s commitment to diversity. Nevertheless, the candidate has demonstrated some effort by undertaking independent research, as evidenced by their citation of the firm’s accolades.

A final point of improvement surrounds the candidate’s claim that they would be ‘able to thrive in’ the firm’s ‘open and inclusive culture’. This claim is could be substantiated further – what is it about such an environment that would allow you to thrive? It would have been helpful if the candidate researched some schemes or programmes that were unique to Dechert or the firm’s trainees and discussed how they would get involved with them should they join the firm.]

Another reason that attracted me to Dechert was the quality of training. Their small intake of 10 trainees would allow me to gain valuable exposure into a wide variety of practice areas, including Litigation and Financial Regulation. Given the small intake, I am excited at the prospect of the higher level of responsibility given to us as trainees whilst working on a diverse range of practice areas. This separates Dechert from other firms, especially those with larger trainee intakes since the level of responsibility and hands-on experience with client work may not be felt as much.

[Feedback: The candidate uses this paragraph to discuss the firm’s training contract, specifically, the size of the firm’s trainee intake. The candidate has made some effort to highlight the difference between Dechert’s training contract and other City law firms’. Additionally, the candidate attempts to explain what a small trainee intake means for them, and why it is important to them.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have elaborated on why increased responsibility and exposure is of interest to them. The candidate does well to highlight a rarer feature of a City law firm, namely, a smaller trainee intake; however, this should be paired with a discussion as to why this would benefit the candidate in particular. You can achieve this in your answers by discussing times when you have dealt with high levels of responsibility, or when you have needed to take the initiative regarding a piece of work.

Whilst the candidate’s answer is an example of a decent foundation, you can build on this in your applications by asking yourself ‘why?’. For example, the candidate writes ‘I am excited at the prospect of the higher level of responsibility given to us as trainees […]’. The candidate should have asked themselves, ‘why?’, and written a sentence summarising that sentiment afterwards. This would ensure a watertight answer with clear logical reasoning that will impress the recruiter and make their job easier.]

Lastly, I wish to practice at Dechert for its strong international presence. With 29 offices operating under one integrated profit pool, the opportunity to work at a firm well hedged in key markets around the world is exciting. Having lived in London, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, the exposure to new social and business cultures has piqued my interest to work internationally, and deal with clients on both domestic and cross-jurisdictional matters. Furthermore, Dechert’s heavy involvement with GIC as a client stood out to me, given my Singaporean background. This shows the international nature of the firm come to life through its work with clients from all over the world.

[Feedback: The candidate rounds off their answer by discussing Dechert’s international presence, and corporate structure. Once again, the candidate makes a decent attempt at employing the PEE/AL structure, and incorporating specific facts and statistics into their answer. Additionally, the candidate has also tried to make their answer specific to them by citing their personal experiences and background to justify why their point is relevant to them specifically.

The candidate does well to mention specific details, such as Dechert’s integrated profit pool, the firm’s 29 offices, and GIC (as Dechert’s client). These details are what begin to elevate this answer from an average response to an answer that passes the application form stage.

Similar to the previous paragraph, to improve this answer, the candidate could have elaborated on why they are interested in international matters, why Dechert’s integrated profit pool is a pertinent trait, and why working with GIC interests them. Whilst the candidate has given a cursory justification regarding GIC and international work (namely, that they come from an international background), this could be taken further.

You should remember that many candidates will come from international backgrounds; hence, it is not sufficient simply to say that you are interested or well-suited to international work because you are an international candidate. Instead, you should consider the fundamental differences between a domestic matter and an international matter, and why those differences matter to you. An oft-quoted reason is that international work adds a significant layer of complexity to the transaction. However, it is not enough to simply state that – you must consider why that additional complexity appeals to you in particular, and whether you have any evidence to substantiate that attraction.

Similarly, the candidate could have explained why Dechert’s profit-sharing model appeals to them. An easily discernible reason that you may wish to consider is that such a model encourages the offices to work together on matters, rather than working separately (some firms do not adopt such a structure; instead they elect to use a Swiss verein model which results in each office keeping their profits separate). Once again, when you write your answers, you should be questioning your claims by asking yourself ‘why?’. To write a successful application, you must use a clear structure, employ facts, statistics and personal examples, and provide an analysis that goes beyond a “headline” claim.]

Why have you chosen to apply to Dentons and why in this location?

Given my multinational background and global outlook, I find Dentons’ global work and international presence, with 188 offices in 77 countries, appealing. At the Legal Cheek Virtual Law Fair, I discussed the firm's multi-jurisdictional work and the diversity of its employees with Ivan Jelocnik. My work experience in 4 different continents has been influential in developing my understanding of cultural and geographical sensitivities. I am eager to utilise my fluency in 4 languages and understanding of different markets when advising international clients and when collaborating with colleagues globally.

Feedback: The candidate does well to make their motivation for applying to Dentons immediately clear to the reader and justify said motivation by reference to personal insights such as their previous work experience and their linguistic skills. By invoking their interaction with a firm representative at a law fair, the candidate shows the reader that they went above and beyond to explore their interest in Dentons. If you have not had such an opportunity, you can also achieve a similar effect by taking your research into a given firm beyond the superficial level and identifying its unique selling points (USPs) within the legal market (e.g., Dentons’ “polycentric” approach).

Furthermore, I am drawn to Dentons’ innovative use of technology through programmes such as Nextlaw labs and the innovation module for trainees. This resonates with me as I previously enjoyed working on creating a data model that used machine learning to predict decisions of the EU Commission when determining fines in EU competition law breaches.

Feedback:  Although it is perfectly fine to discuss a given firm’s use of legal technology and innovation when answering motivation-related questions or prompts, we would only advise doing so if you have done your research and are genuinely passionate about the topic. Otherwise, it will be difficult for you to stand out from the crowd. In this case, the candidate appears to have the right ideas in mind but does not, unfortunately, fully develop them. As such, this paragraph adds little to no value to the overall answer and could have been scrapped altogether. Nevertheless, it provides a good example of the candidate linking their (brief) point about the firm to a personal insight, which ultimately lends credibility to their answer and makes it appear more genuine.

I am attracted to Dentons’ London office because of its high-quality banking and finance work. My interest in this practice area developed during a case study I participated in at Allen & Overy’s Amsterdam office. I advised the client on the issuance of a senior corporate bond in the debt capital markets for a furniture retailer expanding into India. As a LittleLaw legal content writer, I write reports on finance-related topics such as Ant Group’s raising of capital as part of its planned initial public offering. Through the guaranteed seat in banking, I could continue to pursue this interest, whilst learning from lawyers leading in this field.

Feedback: The candidate correctly identifies one of the perks of working in Dentons’ London office, i.e., the prospect of working on high-stakes, non-commoditised banking and finance matters. Again, the candidate does well to link their point about the firm to a personal interest in banking and finance that they have explored by participating in relevant extra-curricular activities.

However, the aforementioned perk is not unique to Dentons’ London office. Incidentally, Allen & Overy also guarantees a seat in banking as part of their training contract, such that one could easily replace “Dentons’ London office” with “Allen & Overy’s London office” without altering the meaning of this paragraph to a significant extent. As a rule of thumb, if you can switch between firm names with relative ease, it means that your answer is not sufficiently tailored to the firm to which you are applying. To take this answer to the next level, the candidate could have cited e.g., a specific banking and finance matter in which Dentons’ London office has been involved and explained their interest therein. 

Please complete the personal statement below in no more than 650 words. Within your personal statement please answer the following questions:

What do you think differentiates DWF from its competitors? (50%)

What transferable skills have you developed that you think will be relevant as a DWF trainee solicitor. In your answer please consider how you have demonstrated them and how you would apply them as a trainee solicitor. (50%)

Please note that you will be scored on your drafting ability as well as your content.

Unlike most traditional law firms, DWF's ‘complex, managed and connected’ delivery mechanism provides clients with integrated end-to-end support for all of their legal business requirements.

Recognised as one of the most dynamic legal businesses in Europe by the Financial Times, DWF has strengthened its client offering through the establishment of its managed services business and the acquisition of Mindcrest. With clients increasingly seeking legal advisors who serve to increase transparency, reduce price and increase value of services, its unique ability to deliver an end-to-end outsourced legal solution, has positioned DWF as an attractive market leader, providing value beyond that of its competitors. Overcoming time and resource-intensive processes, by developing solutions such as DWF draft to automate contract drafting, allows sector specialists to focus on complex legal issues and positions DWF to support existing and new clients in areas where it has not previously had capability.

Feedback: The candidate correctly identifies DWF’s complementary services offering as one of the firm’s unique selling points (USPs). However, it should be noted that Mindcrest is a managed services business; it would have made more sense for the candidate to frame the acquisition of Mindcrest as evidence of DWF’s stated strategy to build a global managed services business, and to cite the firm’s Connected Services team alongside Mindcrest to illustrate the fullness of its complementary services offering and “its unique ability to deliver an end-to-end outsourced solution”.

Nevertheless, client service makes for an excellent point of analysis. As service businesses, law firms’ ability to thrive depends on clients; as such, client service is a crucial aspect of any law firm’s business strategy. In light of this, the candidate does well to take the client’s point of view in explaining the value of DWF’s integrated business model.

Moreover, the candidate discusses automation, a topical issue within the legal market, and correctly identifies one of the firm’s initiatives in this regard, DWF draft. What makes their discussion particularly effective, however, is the fact that they explain how an automated solution as DWF draft can benefit legal professionals and, ultimately, clients.

As DWF has a vast presence across sectors now navigating technological advancements, and with insurance technology poised to mature in 2021, the firm's tech-product offering demonstrates its readiness to support clients and DWF's connected services signal the firm's understanding of clients’ changing industry landscape, and the business challenges they face. The firm's readied and adaptable product offering enables DWF to provide solutions quicker than competitors, for example, DWF360 already can offer solutions to support the detection, prevention and mitigation of Covid-19 risks in the workplace, positioning DWF ahead of the curve. Additionally, DWF's aim of ‘disrupting to progress', as an employer, attracts business innovators who are the driving force of the evolving legal profession ensuring that the firm continues to provide cutting-edge legal business services.

Feedback: Although they could have provided some examples of the sectors “now navigating technological advancements” for the sake of completeness, the candidate correctly identifies DWF’s innovative product offering as another one of the firm’s USPs, whilst implicitly acknowledging the firm’s particular strength in the insurance sector. Echoing the comments made in relation to the previous paragraph, the candidate does well to frame their discussion of said product offering in terms of client service. Not only do they explain how it enables the firm to enhance client service, but they also provide an example to illustrate their point, i.e., DWF 360. To achieve a similar effect, we would recommend following the “PEE” structure (“point”. “explanation”, “example”), as the candidate does in this case.

The candidate has the right idea in highlighting the fact that DWF’s status as a “disruptor” within the market is poised to attract fellow “disruptors” as employees; without the right professionals, the firm would not be able to provide its “cutting-edge” services and stand out from the crowd in clients’ eyes. However, it would have made more sense to provide examples of the unique aspects of the training programme or the professional opportunities offered by the firm to illustrate such a point, rather than simply extrapolate it from the firm’s “aim of ‘disrupting to progress’”.

DWF's delivery model demonstrates its entrepreneurial approach and reflects the way modern businesses operate and fosters valuable client relationships. As the legal sector increasingly faces competition from other areas, such as AI technology and auditing firms, providing an integrated, multidisciplinary approach for clients, without compromising quality, is something that other businesses are not well-placed to offer, giving DWF the edge on competitors and providing for a sustainable business strategy.

Feedback: This paragraph represents the thrust of the candidate’s argument in response to the first question within the application form. Although it might serve as a helpful summary for the reader, it ultimately adds little to no value to the overall answer because it repeats what has already been said. We would have used the word count to further develop the previous points. Remember that, more often than not, recruiters prefer to see “depth” over “breadth” in application forms.

My ability to think analytically and creatively has been tested daily and I can analyse a problem to reach an innovative solution. In a recent project to migrate transaction bibles to a cloud-based platform, I worked alongside a team of business-leads to develop and implement a purpose-built software. Throughout the project, I demonstrated innovation by consistently seeking opportunities to refine the software, and agility by implementing and embracing changes whilst the project was underway. As clients are looking to DWF to provide pioneering business solutions, together with DWF's encouragement to think differently, as a trainee solicitor I would strive to find new ways of providing services and would embrace the use of technology to facilitate the delivery of high-quality services, responding positively to challenges.

Feedback: When answering skill-related questions, it is generally good practice to stick to the core competencies, which include teamwork, communication, organisation and time management, resilience, attention to detail, adaptability, and critical thinking. We would only recommend departing from the core competencies if the firm to which you are applying places particular emphasis on a specific skill or set of skills on its website or in its marketing materials. To accommodate the word limit on this application form, we would suggest that you choose three competencies and develop your discussion of said competencies as much as possible.

Having chosen your competencies, you should provide examples that demonstrate the fact that you possess said competencies. To find such examples, it is generally good practice to reflect on situations that arose as part of your previous/ current work experience, your extra-curricular activities, and/or your positions of responsibility, and tested e.g., your ability to organise and manage your time effectively. We would suggest that you avoid discussing work you did/ are doing for your degree programme at university; since most candidates went to university, it is difficult to stand out from the crowd when discussing e.g., your organisation and time management skills by reference to the fact that you completed multiple essays within the same timeframe.

Your aim is to show – not simply tell – the reader the relevance of the examples you have chosen to the skill itself and to the role of trainee solicitor. To achieve this effect, we would recommend following the PEEL technique (“point, “explanation”, “example”, “link”), and ensuring that you are painting a sufficiently clear picture of the situation for the reader. Remember that the reader should not be left guessing or making too many assumptions.

Although this is a successful application, the candidate’s answer in response to the second question within the application form is not as strong as their answer in response to the first question. The candidate has not made their chosen competency immediately clear to the reader; it appears as though the candidate is oscillating between critical thinking, creative problem-solving, agility, and – bizarrely – innovation. You should note that “innovation” is not a skill; one cannot say “I demonstrated innovation”, but one might be able to say “I demonstrated an ability to innovate”. Be mindful of phrasing, especially when the prompt explicitly directs candidates to note that their answer will be scored on the basis of their drafting ability, as well as their content. You should also avoid shoehorning multiple competencies within the same example because you will not be able to adequately demonstrate that you possess any one of those competencies. As a corollary, the example provided by the candidate in this case is not presented in an effective manner because it does not serve to demonstrate to the reader that the candidate possesses any given competency. Naturally, the link to the role of trainee solicitor is also deficient.

Although I am based in NRF's Newcastle office, my team is in London meaning face-to-face contact is limited and communicating well is imperative. My ability to communicate effectively would position me well to work collaboratively with teams across the DWF network. Supported by DWF's collegiate working approach, I would feel empowered to set my challenges and collaborate with lawyers from different jurisdictions on intellectually complex transactions knowing that I have access to ample support and supervision, fostering development. Further, having worked with a diverse clientele I am confident in my ability to build rapport and establish valuable working-relationships and together with my desire to understand business' drivers for success, as a trainee solicitor this would enable me to appreciate client requirements and challenges to develop tailored legal solutions.

Feedback: Echoing the comments made in relation to the previous paragraph, the candidate jumps between competencies, which ultimately hinders their ability to present a persuasive example in relation to any given competency and draw a coherent link to the role of trainee solicitor. It would have made more sense for the candidate to focus on their ability to communicate effectively and develop the example of their role at NRF in support of their claim that they possess said ability to show the reader how they go about ensuring effective communication with the team in London.

My commitment to volunteering has had a significant impact on my personal and professional growth and has provided the opportunity to co-ordinate and project manage fundraising events. I would be proud to use these skills as a trainee solicitor, to support DWF's commitment to CSR and promoting inclusion through the DWF Foundation and charitable initiatives.

Feedback: Having the opportunity to coordinate and manage events is not a skill in and of itself. However, by coordinating and managing events, the candidate may have derived organisation and time management skills or communication skills, for instance, that they could then apply as a trainee solicitor.  

Why have you chosen to apply for a Training Contract at DWF? (250 words)

I am attracted to DWF’s commitment to innovative problem-solving for clients. At the London Open Day, I learnt from Office Managing Partner Jonathan Moss that the firm delivered positive outcomes for clients, colleagues and communities through its three offerings. Given the market competition with alternative legal service providers, Mindcrest as DWF’s managed service platform effectively scaled back workflows and optimised services by outsourcing. DWF demonstrates high adaptability to evolve according to clients’ needs and market developments through its Corporate Innovation strategy. This aligns with my open mind in utilising legaltech to identify trends and encourage digital disruption. Working at [redacted legal technology hub], I gained technological experience developing a groundbreaking AI sentencing predictor in the combination of legal domain knowledge and AI technologies. I am keen to engage in the unique legal tech seat to explore cutting-edge tools ranging from collaboration platforms such as HighQ to AI extraction with iManage Extract.

Feedback: This has the makings of a good paragraph. First, you should notice how the candidate gets straight to the point. From the outset, we know the candidate’s first reason for being interested in DWF (its innovative strengths). Not only does this create a good baseline structure from which the candidate can develop their argument, but it also makes the candidate’s writing clear and easy to follow. You should note how the candidate then follows the PEEL structure well (point, evidence, explanation, link). They begin with a straightforward point before tailoring it to DWF. Then, the candidate introduces a personalised example demonstrating their interest in legal technology. The candidate then explains how this example developed their interest in legal technology, before finally linking it back to the work they expect to do at DWF. This results in a cogent, well-structured and easy-to-follow argument.

The candidate also does well in demonstrating the depth of their research into DWF. Not only does the candidate reference their attendance at the Open Day, but they also give passing mention to DWF’s technology platform. Furthermore, they briefly reference another unique feature of DWF – its legal technology seat. This demonstrates that the candidate has conducted thorough research into DWF, and so has a clear long-term interest in working there.

You should also note the quality of evidence deployed by the candidate. The candidate identifies a personalised experience that is clearly relevant to their interest in legal technology. The candidate then explains precisely how this experience developed their interest in legal technology, before providing a concluding link between the experience and their wider interest in DWF. This means that the recruiter is left fully convinced of this candidate’s interest in DWF’s legal technology elements. Your own evidence should be similarly high-quality, specific and relevant.

That said, we do not think this paragraph is quite well-tailored enough to DWF yet. The candidate relies on DWF’s managed service platform and innovative strategy but does not explain how this makes DWF unique. Most City law firms offer legal technology services of some kind. Indeed, almost the entire Magic and Silver Circle firms have their own legal technology platforms with the same aim of “scaling back workflows” and “optimising services”. This means that the candidate’s writing is not sufficiently tailored to DWF. The candidate should have improved this paragraph by identifying what makes DWF’s legal technology strategy unique. This problem is also evident when the candidate name-drops HighQ, AI extraction and iManage. Almost all law firms make use of these platforms (even ones that aren’t keen on legal technology). As such, the candidate’s writing is not specific enough to DWF.  As a general rule, your writing isn’t tailored enough if the law firm’s name can be easily swapped out with another firm’s (and it makes just as much sense!).

As a minor point, the candidate uses an incorrect abbreviation in “legaltech” and also abbreviates “technology” to “tech” at several points. This creates an unduly informal tone. You should not rely on abbreviations like this to meet the word count – it can negatively impact the tone and professionalism of your writing overall. Instead, you should aim to cut your writing down by identifying over-long sentences and unnecessary words in your work.

I am interested in DWF’s market-leading insurance and personal injury expertise. Although I was sympathetic to plaintiff clients during my internship in personal injury, sometimes the claim amounts were disproportionate. I am keen to explore how DWF protects corporate defendants in complex and major injury claims, especially when calculating losses sensitive to inflationary pressure and the associated cost of living crisis. With a passion for justice to pursue a fair outcome for both sides, I am excited to acquire different skills with an outcome-driven approach to strive for an early settlement to minimise clients’ overall indemnity spend.

Feedback: Again, the candidate structures their writing well here. Their argument is crystal-clear. They lead in with a clear central point (i.e. their interest in DWF’s insurance/personal injury expertise). Then, the candidate offers a personal example before explaining how that developed their interest in DWF’s personal injury work. Finally, the candidate links their personal motivations back into their wider interest in personal injury work. This creates a coherent paragraph that is quite easy to follow overall.

You should also note how the candidate has used the word count and prioritised their points. The candidate has clearly prioritised depth over breadth, by identifying two objective features of DWF that get to the heart of its business activities (its legal tech strategy and its most profitable practice areas). The candidate then dedicates two paragraphs exploring each of these points in roughly equal depth. Since the candidate has prioritised depth over breadth, it means they can analyse their interest in each point and back them up with high-quality examples. You should approach your answers in the same way. In 250-word questions, you have very little space to write about your interest in the firm. You should prioritise two objective features of the firm (with less regard to its culture or training), before analysing both points in detail using the PEEL structure. This will result in a thorough and well-argued answer.

As with the previous paragraph, the candidate does not go far enough in tailoring their writing to DWF. In fact, the candidate’s tailoring is even weaker here than in the first paragraph. Much of the candidate’s writing is just as applicable to other firms active in these fields (such as Clyde & Co or Irwin Mitchell). You could just as easily write about Clyde & Co having a “market-leading insurance and personal injury practice” as you could about DWF. This means the candidate’s work is not tailored well enough. It is not enough for you to assert that a firm’s practice area is “market-leading” and works on “complex and major claims”. You need to explain specifically how the firm differentiates itself from competitors in that field, before explaining why that differentiating factor appeals to you.

We’re also concerned that the candidate shoehorns irrelevant commercial awareness points into the answer. The candidate goes into detail explaining inflation-related pressures and the cost-of-living crisis, but it is not clear how this writing connects with DWF’s specific work in insurance/personal injury. As a rule, you should make sure that every line of writing is specific and directly relevant to the question. If you

Some of the candidate’s writing is also quite grandiose and pompous here. We would particularly cut out the candidate’s language in having a “passion for justice”. Not only does this contribute little to the candidate’s argument, but we would also expect every law student to have some kind of passion for achieving fair outcomes and finding justice. We are not being facetious by pointing this out; the recruiter simply will not be impressed by this kind of language. Instead, we would expect the candidate to analyse their example in detail before explaining precisely how it relates to DWF’s differentiating factors.

What attracts you to this firm?

My experiences abroad have provided me with a breadth and diversity of thinking and an ability to empathise with a diverse range of people and circumstances. This interest has ensured my focus has been on international firms. My research has shown how international and diverse the work at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath can be, and this immediately ensured my interest.

Feedback:The paragraph identifies an obvious benefit of working at an international law firm, namely that you will primarily work on international matters/deals with people from diverse global backgrounds. This suggests that the candidate has at least a superficial understanding of what working as a solicitor at Faegre Drinker might entail.

The first issue with this paragraph is that it is not tailored to Faegre Drinker at all. Nearly all City law firms have international presences of some sort. Even those who do not have offices elsewhere in the world primarily work on complex multi-jurisdictional deals and matters, and they will typically have alliances with local law firms in other jurisdictions to assist with this (a prime example being Slaughter and May). As such, the candidate’s assertion that Faegre Drinker’s work is “international and diverse” is not specific enough to the firm. The candidate could have easily copied + pasted this paragraph into another application form and swapped out “Faegre Drinker” with another firm’s name. To improve, the candidate would have needed to offer concrete examples in support of their point. This could have either been (1) an example of a multi-jurisdictional deal worked on by Faegre Drinker or (2) a high-level analysis of Faegre Drinker’s global growth/expansion strategy more widely. Had the candidate done this, they would have shown the recruiter that they had taken the firm seriously and conducted thorough research as a result.  

Another issue is that the candidate’s personal motivations are not entirely convincing. We have seen multiple applications where a candidate asserts that they have some “experiences abroad” which have given them an “appreciation” for diversity, but the candidate offers no specific details or explanations in support of this assertion. Similarly, this candidate does not provide any specific personal examples relating to their travels abroad and does not explain how they developed an appreciation for diversity as a result. When making a point, you must always substantiate it with detailed personal examples and explanations.

This paragraph is also missing a central link back to the candidate’s motivations. The candidate asserts that Faegre Drinker offers them interesting international work, but they offer us no explanation as to why this interests them or how that ties back in with their initial point. It is not self-evident that you will enjoy multi-jurisdictional legal work just because you have spent time travelling abroad. As such, the candidate would have needed to explain why Faegre Drinker’s international work appeals to them and how it ties back in with their wider motivations.

To avoid these issues, we recommend that you use the PEEL/AL (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link) in your motivational answers. You should lead in with a point about why the firm appeals to you and flesh this out with specific detailed research (P). Then, you should provide specific personal examples (E) and explain/analyse how your example demonstrates your interest in the point (E/A). Finally, you should tie your answer together by linking your personal motivations back to the central point (L). This will guarantee that your answer is well-structured and complete.

Meaningful and challenging work for trainees and the chance to experience cultural osmosis through actual time with a range of fee-earners made your firm stand out. My most rewarding experiences at work have always involved collaborating with a variety of colleagues with different strengths and ways of thinking. 

Feedback: The candidate tries to pick out an obvious feature of working as a trainee solicitor, namely that you will handle challenging work. Again, this paragraph suffers two flaws in that (1) it does not answer the question asked and (2) it is not tailored to Faegre Drinker.  First, the question asks you to explain your specific interest in Faegre Drinker as opposed to your interest in law more widely. This means the candidate should have offered 2-3 in-depth reasons for wanting to join Faegre Drinker, preferably focusing on Faegre Drinker’s work and training.

Secondly, the candidate does not offer any points specific to Faegre Drinker. Every firm will offer “meaningful and challenging work” with opportunities to “collaborate with a variety of colleagues”. As such, the candidate could easily have replaced “your firm” with any other firm’s name and it would have made just as much sense. Instead, we recommend that you focus on 1-2 specific elements of the firm’s work and explain why these specifically appeal to you. This will also give you an opportunity to demonstrate your research into the firm by analysis specific deals/matters that the firm has worked on.

Even if the question had been asking “why commercial law?” generally, this paragraph would not be sufficiently tailored to the career path. Nearly all career paths will offer “meaningful and challenging work” with opportunities to “collaborate with colleagues”. The candidate should have offered better insight into what day-to-day work as a commercial solicitor specifically entails.

The candidate’s writing also needs some minor improvements. First, we would avoid using language such as “your firm” as it is somewhat presumptuous. You should only refer to the firm by name and in the third person. Secondly, the candidate uses the phrase “cultural osmosis” without explaining what they mean by this. We would recommend avoiding flowery language such as this in favour of clear language, since recruiters are testing your ability to write concisely and accessibly for busy commercial clients.

I am still beginning my study of law, and while I do have some pre-existing interests I am flexible as to where I may specialise. The range of specialties that your London office can boast of convinced me that yours would be a firm where I could find an area of law I was truly capable of thriving in.

Everything I have seen about the legal industry in the last few years has highlighted the importance of a firm being adaptable and ensuring employees can thrive. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath’s reputation in these areas is excellent, and I was very impressed by the training initiatives your firm boasts.

Feedback: While the candidate is sensible to keep an open mind, they would still need to offer sound reasons for their interest in Faegre Drinker’s work. The candidate would have needed to demonstrate research into Faegre Drinker’s breadth of practice area strengths, before explaining why these appeal to the candidate personally.

These final two paragraphs suffer the same flaws as the previous ones, namely that they are not tailored to Faegre Drinker and the candidate does not meaningfully tie their reasons back in with their personal motivations. It is possible that the candidate struggled with the tight word count – it appears that they have prioritised breadth over depth. Instead, the candidate should have picked out 2-3 reasons for wanting to join Faegre Drinker and analysed these reasons in detail.

I am someone who values every opportunity to expand my horizons or develop myself, and it is clear that Faegre Drinker would be an incredible place to make that happen.

Feedback: In view of the tight word count, the candidate could have safely cut this final paragraph out. You do not need to sign off “why firm?” answers in this way, unless you are writing a cover letter with an unlimited word count.

Please write about yourself in the space provided below. You may wish to mention any positions of responsibility held at school or subsequently, any regular employment or other work experience and any achievements, interests and personal qualities which are relevant.

Please also state briefly why you are making this application. (850 words)

I chose to study law with business due to my interest in the complex relationship between the disciplines. Without a strong grasp of the legal framework regulating a market, many companies have crumbled. Facebook's Libra is the perfect example of a brilliant idea struggling due to legal shortcomings. To succeed as a corporate solicitor, I must not only be a legal aid, but also a business advisor and confidant to my clients. While partaking in first-year schemes at Linklaters, HSF, and Simmons & Simmons, I was excited to gain exposure to commercial matters, such as a securities swap and a hedge fund set-up. I enjoyed completing the assigned tasks as I was able to get first-hand experience of how lawyers tailor legal advice to clients businesses and sectors. I also recently attended the Vacation Scheme Insight Workshop at Freshfields. From networking with solicitors at the firm, I recognised that commercial law is not a stagnant field and, since firms like Freshfields regularly work on precedent-setting deals, there is always more to learn. The diverse roles encountered as a solicitor and the intellectually stimulating nature of this profession attracted me to commercial law.

[Feedback: There are many ways to approach the prompt for this application. The firm does give an indication of the kind of topics it wants you to discuss in your answer; however, the structure and overall approach are up to you. We recommend having your answer consist of four to five paragraphs, each with a point, evidence, explanation, link (‘PEEL’) structure. This will allow you to respond to each of the elements of the prompt and provide sufficient depth in your answer.

In this first paragraph, the candidate focuses on their motivation for pursuing a commercial in commercial law. The candidate leads by citing their degree: law and business. This immediately gives them an opportunity to segue into the discussion of the interplay between law and business, namely, commercial law. The candidate then bolsters their answer by citing their previous schemes and experiences at other commercial law firms. Finally, the section includes a reference to Freshfields itself and a link back to the candidate’s overall argument.

Broadly speaking, the answer is quite strong. The candidate leads their answer with a response to the classic ‘why law?’ question. This is a good approach as it serves to contextualise the rest of the candidate’s answer and demonstrates to the recruiter, from the start, that the candidate is serious about pursuing this career.

Furthermore, the candidate writes clearly and concisely. You should notice how the candidate uses relatively short sentences that nicely connect to and flow from one another. This makes the answer easy to read and the candidate’s argument easy to follow. The candidate also includes a well-structured argument. You should observe how the candidate substantiates their claims with evidence and an explanation of that evidence. This means that the argument is convincing and easily comprehensible. You should remember that the recruiter does not want to have to read your answer twice. They have hundreds if not thousands of applications to get through. Hence, the easier your answer is to comprehend, the more the recruiter will enjoy reading (and accepting) your application.

Additionally, the candidate employs a good level of detail in their answer. Whilst many candidates will employ evidence and explanations, the very best candidates will do so whilst including lots of specific detail. For example, the candidate does not merely describe that they ‘gain[ed] exposure to commercial matters’, they immediately give specifics: ‘such as a securities swap and a hedge fund set-up’.

Many candidates omit these kinds of specific examples and details. However, this information is crucial for your answer’s chance of success. Specific detail makes your answer more engaging and persuasive and lends it credence. You must remember that the recruiter does not know you personally and will be learning about you and your experiences for the first time. Therefore, if you do not include specific details (such as facts, statistics, names, times, and so on), the recruiter will be unable to judge whether what you are saying is noteworthy.

Finally, the candidate does especially well in including a link back to their overall argument at the end of the paragraph. The entire paragraph has been about the candidate’s motivations for a career in commercial law. The candidate has given lots of evidence and explanation for that motivation, but it is in the link section that the candidate explicitly and forcefully connects their argument to this explanation and evidence. This is excellent as it acts as a one-sentence summary and expressly communicates to the recruiter that this topic has been discussed and appropriately concluded. You should not forget this ‘link’ section when you write your answers. Many candidates believe that this section is optional. However, it is essential. Without it, you risk your answer falling flat at its end.

Everything that you discuss in your answer is with the aim of furthering a particular argument or claim; hence, at the end of your answer, you must demonstrate how what you have discussed substantiates your ‘point’, namely, your primary claim. Failure to do so may mean the recruiter may be confused as to what the point of your whole discussion was.

One area of improvement for this answer concerns the candidate’s spelling and grammar. Unfortunately, the candidate misses an apostrophe when writing, ‘tailor legal advice to clients businesses’. Whilst typographical errors do not necessitate the rejection of an application, recruiters are becoming harsher when it comes to reviewing applications. Each typographical mistake that you make drastically increases the chance of your application getting rejected. You should remember that the recruiter is assessing your application as a whole. Therefore, they want to see evidence of attention to detail and clear written communication (skills that lawyers need to have).

To avoid making these errors, you must proofread your answers before submission. Furthermore, you could use a speller checker (either as part of Microsoft Word or Grammarly). Finally, you may also give your application to a family member or trusted friend to proofread for typographical errors.] 

Freshfields’ eight-seat training contract is a strong appeal for me as the flexible structure enables one to find their niche and make well-informed career choices. Moreover, Freshfields consistently undertakes high-quality work across contentious and transactional departments, evidenced by its band 1 status in the Chambers Rankings for both Corporate M&A and Dispute Resolution. As a trainee, I would feel confident that I am gaining the best learning and development opportunities regardless of my seat. I am especially drawn to Freshfields because of the calibre of its international work. I chose to study law in London to have a global education, broaden my horizons and gain access to law firms that work with prominent companies around the world. I am particularly interested in Freshfields' approach to Africa. The benefits of the StrongerTogether network are evident in the fact that Freshfields has advised on matters in all 54 African countries. As a proud Nigerian, I look forward to working on transactions that positively impact the African economy.

[Feedback: This section focuses on the candidate’s motivations concerning joining Freshfields (namely, answering a classic ‘why [this firm]?’ style question). The candidate begins by addressing a unique aspect of the firm’s training contract: its eight-seat structure. The candidate then goes on to discuss the firm’s specialisms and high practice area rankings. Finally, the candidate homes in on Freshfields’ international work, particularly its work in Africa.

Overall, this has the makings of a very strong answer. The candidate should be commended for touching on all of the right points for discussion. When justifying your motivation concerning a particular firm, you should focus on at least two areas: the firm’s work and the firm’s training. Optionally, you can discuss a third area: the firm’s culture. The candidate, therefore, highlights a unique aspect of the firm’s training contract, namely, its structure. You should note that many candidates will bring this up in their answers. Therefore, you should be prepared to go into an in-depth discussion of this feature, justifying why it appeals to you and why you are suited for it.

The candidate also discusses the firm’s work. Crucially, the candidate provides some evidence for their comments about the firm’s specialisms and standard of work. As previously mentioned, you must provide evidence to substantiate any and all claims that you make. Whilst the recruiter may be aware that the firm has certain traits, they want to know how you came to know about them, what research you did on the firm, and, ultimately, why you care about those traits. Therefore, be prepared to justify how you came to learn about certain features of the firm by providing specific evidence in your answer.

The candidate also provides a brief justification for their desire to have international work. Notably, the candidate uses their personal background to evidence their desire to broaden their horizons and work with companies with a global presence. You should remember that these law firms are international entities with international clients. Hence, the work will be dynamic and complex. You must not only demonstrate to the recruiter that you are capable of handling such work but also that you actively want to take on that work.

Finally, the candidate discusses the firm’s presence in Africa. They justify their attraction to this feature of Freshfields by citing their personal background and referencing the ‘StrongerTogether’ network. This is excellent. The candidate justifies the claim about the firm’s work in Africa by citing specific information and demonstrating that they have properly researched the firm. Additionally, the candidate personalises their answer by linking their argument to their own background. This makes the answer very persuasive. You should remember that law firms are looking to hire individuals from a wide range of backgrounds. International students should be especially alive to this fact. If you have experience in or knowledge of a range of languages or cultures, these are excellent things to mention and use in your applications.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have focused on one or two points rather than several and gone into more depth. Whilst the candidate has highlighted several relevant areas of discussion, their answer lacks sufficient depth when it comes to its argument. The paragraph as a whole is aimed at answering ‘why do you want to be a trainee and work at Freshfields?’. To properly answer this question, the candidate needed to have selected one or two points and fully fleshed out a response. As the candidate did not do this, the answer feels slightly superficial in some areas.

For example, at the beginning of the paragraph, the candidate writes that ‘Freshfields’ eight-seat training contract is a strong appeal for me as the flexible structure enables one to find their niche and make well-informed career choices’. This is a valid claim. However, it is not justified or evidenced in the rest of the candidate’s paragraph. The recruiter is likely to read this and remark that whilst this is an advantage of the eight-seat structure, what evidence is there that the candidate would thrive in this structure? How does the candidate know it will help them find their ‘niche and make well-informed career choices’? And why does that even matter to them? These might seem like redundant questions with obvious answers; however, you must remember that the recruiter will not infer your argument for you. They can only go off what you write, so you must write explicitly.

Similarly, the candidate writes that ‘[a]s a trainee, I would feel confident that I am gaining the best learning and development opportunities regardless of my seat’. However, they provide no direct evidence for this. The candidate previously cites the top rankings for the firm in Corporate and Dispute Resolution; however, this does not prove that there will be good learning and development opportunities at the firm. The rankings simply mean that the department produces the best work and that the candidate (as a trainee at Freshfields) would have a chance to be a part of this. You must be careful and ensure that your evidence directly corresponds to the point it is meant to prove. You should take your time and craft your responses properly. If you rush your work or try to take shortcuts, you risk the recruiter noticing and rejecting your application. It is better to take a few more hours to write a successful answer than to submit an unsuccessful one hastily.] 

I possess various qualities that would make me an asset to Freshfields, such as my strong work ethic and passion. Throughout my time in secondary school, I was appointed to multiple positions of responsibility. For example, I began playing lacrosse in my first year of high school. I trained diligently by practising for at least an hour each day and sought external opportunities to improve, such as playing competitively in a summer league outside of school. In my final year, I was named captain of my varsity team and led them through an undefeated season, which culminated in a gold medal win at the regional championships. Another initiative I took on in high school was to create a Diversity Council with the aim of promoting an inclusive and open environment. As president, I held weekly meetings where I planned our events and delegated responsibilities to my ten committee members. My agenda included making a message board about the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada, organising a film screening on racial intolerance, and bringing in a public speaker for a school-wide Black History Month assembly. Though I faced challenges from a few students who did not understand the significance of these topics, I was ultimately able to increase awareness of racial issues and encourage discourse amongst students and staff. My efforts were recognised at my graduation ceremony by my principal, who described me as a great leader, a community builder, and a powerful change agent.

[Feedback: This section’s argument concerns the candidate’s suitability for being a trainee solicitor at Freshfields. The candidate approaches this section by discussing their positions of responsibility whilst at high school and the competencies that such positions evidence. Specifically, the candidate homes in on two activities: playing lacrosse and being the president of the Diversity Council. In effect, this paragraph (in conjunction with the one below) serves as an answer to a ‘why you?’ style question.

This answer is especially good for its structure and use of detail. You should note how the candidate leads the reader through their argument step-by-step. The candidate leads with a clear point before going into a personal example and accompanying explanation. This results in the reader being able to keep track of what the candidate is talking about and fully appreciate what they achieved.

Furthermore, the candidate’s use of detail is excellent. You should observe how the candidate punctuates their answer with supporting facts and statistics. For example, the candidate specifies when they started playing lacrosse, how long they practiced and what they ultimately achieved as captain. Their use of specific times and facts helps to create an engaging and persuasive answer. Similarly, the candidate goes into a good amount of detail regarding what they did as president of the Diversity Council. You should note that the candidate does not simply write that they were the president – they give examples of and explain what they did as part of the role. For example, the candidate specifies what their message board was about and how many members they delegated tasks to. These might seem like minor details, but cumulatively they build up a vivid and impressive picture.

You should remember that recruiters read hundreds if not thousands of applications. If your answer is not engaging or lacks credence, you risk it being rejected. The standard demanded of candidates now is higher than ever due to the sheer volume of applicants. Therefore, not only does your content need to be good, but the way in which you write must also be up to standard.

Nevertheless, this answer does have some areas in which the candidate could have improved. Crucially, the candidate should have provided a link section at the end of their paragraph. Whilst it is all well and good to discuss these kinds of examples, the candidate fails to state explicitly what their examples and accompanying explanations are in aid of. The candidate makes a point at the beginning of their paragraph concerning their suitability for Freshfields. However, this point is never returned to in the rest of the answer. This is problematic as the recruiter may be wondering how exactly the answer is relevant to the candidate being a good fit for the firm or the role of a trainee solicitor. In essence, the recruiter may ask themselves, ‘…so what?’.

A link section would return the answer to the candidate’s overall point and argument and connect their examples and explanations to the section’s broader argument. To begin a link section, the candidate could have simply added a sentence at the end of their answer beginning, for example, ‘Therefore, I believe I possess the necessary skills to succeed as a Freshfields trainee, as evidenced by [insert skills/discussed examples here].’. Without this element, the answer feels incomplete and loses some of its strength. You should stick to a clear PEEL structure to avoid this mistake in your answers.

Finally, a small point of improvement concerns the answer’s level of detail. Whilst the candidate, for the most part, uses facts and statistics to substantiate their response, they could have included some more. For example, the candidate writes that they organised a film screening. To improve their answer, they could have given the name of the film(s) they chose to show. Similarly, they wrote that they brought in a public speaker – they could have mentioned their name. These kinds of details would help to lend credence to the candidate’s answer. Once again, on their own, they may not do much, but together, the recruiter will feel like they have a better picture of the candidate and find their achievements more relatable and impressive.]

Since starting university, I have fostered my interest in business by partaking in the Reed Smith Business Skills Masterclasses. I also collaborated with two teammates to compete in the Queen Mary Commercial Negotiations Competition. By combining my soft skills, such as communication and empathy, with my business acumen, I persuaded the opposing side to make concessions and was able to obtain a favourable deal for my client. As I commenced my second year, I partnered with eight friends to form the Queen Mary Law and Business Society. I have helped to organise three events as part of a City Series that explores the intersection between legal and commercial fields. The society has brought associates and partners from Linklaters, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Hogan Lovells to discuss their practice areas and explain the responsibilities of a solicitor within commercial deals. By employing my professional connections, I was able to kick off the series with a senior associate from Linklaters who provided us with an overview of capital markets. The City Series has been widely popular with an average attendance of fifty students, even attracting participants from other universities. Along with my extracurricular involvement, I have also excelled academically. My faculty awarded me with the Dechert Prize for the Best First Year Student and the Annual Fund Scholarship. As an ambitious student capable of producing high-quality work in a demanding environment, I believe I have the potential to succeed at Freshfields.

[Feedback: This section essentially continues on from the previous paragraph. In this paragraph, the candidate continues to advocate why they would make for a good trainee solicitor. This argument is forwarded by the candidate discussing their endeavours at university and their positions of responsibility and achievements therein. Specifically, the candidate focuses on their commercial awareness and negotiation skills.

The candidate should be commended for their use of detail. The entire paragraph is stippled with various details, including names, statistics, and particular facts. You should notice how the candidate does not simply name-drop law firms; they weave the mentioning of these firms into their answer. This ensures that the names themselves are not the focus of the candidate’s answer, instead, the names serve to lend strong support to what the candidate is already arguing. This is the difference between a candidate who tries merely to sound good and a candidate who actually produces an inherently persuasive answer.

Furthermore, you should notice how the candidate highlights particular relevant competencies throughout their answer. Ultimately, this paragraph concerns the candidate’s suitability for the role. Therefore, the focus needs to be on the skills that the firm would look for in a trainee solicitor. When you write your answers, especially when focusing on responding to a ‘why you?’ style question, you should focus on such competencies. The main competencies include but are not limited to teamwork/collaboration, persuasion, organisation, motivation/determination, integrity, written/oral communication, problem-solving, and resilience. You must remember, however, that you cannot make a claim that you have such competencies without supplying the necessary evidence. Therefore, you should ensure that you provide a personal example that evidences your claimed competency and explain that example such that the recruiter understands how it is that your chosen example demonstrates that you have the mentioned competency.

Finally, the candidate does well in providing a subtle chronology of events. If the previous paragraph and this section are read together, the candidate has provided the reader with an overview of their achievements and positions of responsibility starting from their first year in high school up until their second year of university. In effect, the candidate has structured their answer year-by-year, walking the recruiter through their record of accomplishments. This is excellent and is something you should look to do in your answers. You should note that law firms are looking for candidates with a track record of academic and extra-curricular success. Therefore, by providing the recruiter with a discussion of personal achievements and positions of responsibility in chronological order, the candidate is subtly demonstrating that they have such a history of success.

To employ such a chronology in your answers, you should observe how the candidate uses times and signposting in their answer. The candidate specifies what they did in their first year of university and then explicitly details what they did in their second year (they also used similar signposts in their previous paragraph concerning high school).

To improve this answer, once again, the candidate needed to have linked their discussion back to the argument at hand. Whilst the candidate does make some attempt to relate their answer back to working at Freshfields, their last sentence is too vague. The candidate writes, ‘As an ambitious student capable of producing high-quality work in a demanding environment, I believe I have the potential to succeed at Freshfields’. This is not necessarily an untrue statement; however, it does not communicate a particularly strong message.

To relate your answer back to a ‘why you?’ style question, you must explicitly explain how the competencies you have discussed would help you as a trainee solicitor at the firm. For example, such a link may look like this:

‘As a Freshfields trainee, my [insert competency here] skills would allow me to complete [insert a typical trainee task here] by [insert explanation here].’

For instance, you may claim to have good attention to detail. This skill would be useful in proofreading documents or completing document comparisons. You can then explain how such a competency would work in practice when completing that particular task, for example, by being able to notice subtle differences in punctuation or the alteration of particular terms. By crafting a link section in this way, you are explicitly communicating to the recruiter that you are a good fit for a trainee solicitor and showing them why that is the case.

The recruiter does not want to have to search for your argument in your answers. They want to read your answer as quickly as possible and come to a determination as to whether it is to be accepted or rejected. Therefore, unless it is something subtle like a chronological structure (which is made explicit through the use of signposting anyway), you must be explicit and leave nothing up to the inferences that the recruiter may, or most probably, may not make.]

Please write about yourself in no more than 850 words. You may wish to mention any positions of responsibility held at school or subsequently, any regular employment or other work experience, any sporting or other achievements and any particular interests and personal qualities which are relevant. Please also state briefly why you are making this application.

I have always believed, that one should never let his schooling interfere with his education. What truly defines and shapes us is how we spend our time outside of the classroom. Accordingly, I participate in as many activities as time permits.

[Feedback: This is an unusual but creative start to an application.  It’s a good riff from a well-known Mark Twain quote.  This adds a bit of personality, but law firms are conventional places - we would play it safe in the opening paragraph.]

My first significant extra-curricular activity was chess, which I began playing at age six. Since then, I have won the Canadian national chess championships for my age group on three separate occasions. I have also represented Canada at six international tournaments including the World Championships on two occasions. As of 2019, I was ranked 4th in Canada in the Under 18 category. Chess has helped me with identifying patterns and strategic planning, and so I find the challenge of identifying and planning new ways to save clients money in tax law to be an exciting one. Considering that Freshfields won UK Tax Firm of the Year in 2019 at the European Tax Awards, it would be amazing to work alongside some of the brightest legal minds in Europe.

[Feedback: This is another impressive accomplishment, but it’s a bit unstructured.  We like the Point, Evidence, Example framework for examples of personal qualities.

●        You should start by identifying the quality or skill that the example demonstrates.  For example, playing chess at a high-level may evidence strong analytical ability

●        Once you have identified the skill or quality, then provide evidence through your example

●        Use the explanation to link the skill or analytical ability back to why it’s important for working as a lawyer.

The Freshfields reference is a bit random here and feels forced.  We would recommend saving this for later in the answer where the candidate talks about Freshfields in depth.]

Debating is another passion, and I was ranked 1st in Ontario and 5th in Canada for debating at school. After joining the Debating Union at Durham, I was chosen as Durham’s top debater to represent the University at the Oxford Union and at the World Debating Championships in the Philippines. I love arguing in all formats: I was a Mooting Semi-Finalist in last year’s competition; I won the Yule Debating Cup this year; and am currently enrolled in the Client Negotiation scheme and Hunt Debating Cup within the law faculty.

[Feedback: The candidate has already talked about debating extensively in the first answer.  What’s the point of this paragraph?  Unless there is a separate skill or quality that the candidate is trying to evidence, we would save the word count or incorporate it into another example of a skill / quality.]

I created my own political blog and write for two student newspapers, and had an essay on the death penalty recently published. I joined the Investment Society to improve my writing on commercial issues, and also to expand my personal stock portfolio, through which I have made over $1000 CAD to date. I read the National Post and Wall Street journal daily to assist me with this as well.

I enjoy the camaraderie of sports and play for the Durham Ice-hockey 1st team (for 2 years now), where I was voted social secretary. This year, I was appointed captain of Law Club Basketball team. In Spring, I plan on trying out for the tennis team, as I have previously played for my school’s 1st team.

[Feedback: We know by this point that the candidate does indeed have a lot of interests beyond his studies, but we don’t really know why we should care.  Remember, the whole point of an example is to evidence something.  For instance, the candidate could have tried to evidence the quality of his communication skills and used (1) his blogging and editorial activities to demonstrate the strength of his written communication and (2) his debating activities to demonstrate his sophisticated verbal communication.]

It’s generally better to provide a single, developed example instead of listing a series of accomplishments.  This reads like something of a laundry list at the moment.]

Positions of responsibility do not intimidate me as I have various leadership experience: I was elected Prefect at school by seventy peers to represent them in student government; I was elected Speaker at the Ontario Model Parliament; I had a lead role in the school play; and I was appointed President of the Conservative Youth Association in the St. Paul’s riding of Toronto. All of these roles helped me to learn how to motivate others, delicately offer constructive criticism, and take responsibility for my actions. My employment for three consecutive summers as a tennis and golf instructor has also assisted in improving my teamwork skills.

[Feedback: Why do positions of responsibility matter?  In and of themselves, they don’t.  But they do give you an opportunity to demonstrate (1) time management / organisational skills, (2) teamwork, (3) dedication, (4) ability to thrive outside your comfort zone; and (5) good judgement.  You should start with the answer first - you have developed X skill through Y position of responsibility.  In particular A, B, C tasks or activities in your role in position Y helped you to develop X skill.]

My experience shadowing corporate lawyers in Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto and London has taught me that commercial law offers the most interesting and cutting-edged work, as the work they do is truly captivating. At [redacted in-house legal department], I helped summarise HR documents to management officers, discussed tax implications, and researched German employment law issues. When shadowing a litigation partner at [redacted law firm #1], I helped with tactical analysis in a California case on shareholder oppression. Most recently, at [redacted law firm #2] I helped with contractual work in insurance law after having read through insurance claims and litigation materials. These experiences have served to cement my desire to become a commercial solicitor.

[Feedback: This is a fantastic amount of relevant work experience for an undergraduate student!  These positions were probably obtained through personal contacts.  If this is not the case, you should take care to highlight that you obtained it on merit (e.g. competitive selection process or by writing speculatively to ask for work experience).  Given the importance of enabling diversity within the legal profession, law firms are likely to place less weight on work experience obtained through personal contacts.

Given the generous word limit, we would expand this section.  It’s an excellent opportunity to evidence your motivation to become a commercial solicitor.  What is it about law that attracts you?  How did you test this on your work experience to confirm your expectations match reality?  Have you done any non-legal work experience to properly consider alternative careers?  Law firms invest a lot of money in their trainees; they want you to have properly thought through your decision before pursuing a career in law.]

I now seek to begin the process of working for Freshfields through a vacation scheme. I love the battle of trying to outwit an opponent and the sense of achievement that comes from winning an argument, and so I believe that Freshfields’ dispute resolution practice would be an excellent fit for me. Freshfields is internationally known for their first-class litigation and international arbitration departments, which work on some of the most complex and fascinating legal conflicts in the world. Employment at Freshfields would mean that I can expect some of the most challenging and interesting work available.

[Feedback: This paragraph is problematic.  It’s fine (and good!) to express an interest in a particular seat, but it’s important to communicate that you are open-minded in where you qualify.  We would also question whether the candidate really understands what working in dispute resolution entails.  For example, most complicated matters run on for so long that you will probably never get the quick satisfaction from winning an argument.

If you are talking about a firm’s expertise in a particular area, it’s a good idea to note the firm’s rankings in Chambers & Partners or Legal500 (both freely accessible online) to evidence this and demonstrate that you have done your research.]

Freshfields is no ordinary commercial law firm, as their client list suggests it offers impeccable service and advice. Goldman Sachs, General Electric, Morgan Stanley, Microsoft and Rolls-Royce could choose any global law firm but they choose to retain Freshfields instead. I believe that part of this decision comes from knowing that Freshfields’ lawyers are not only clever, but also have diverse backgrounds as well. For example, trainees may choose up to eight seats in a training contract, and the firm offers a variety of international or client secondments. Moreover, vacation scheme students may even complete a final week in a foreign office. These opportunities produce more global-thinking, open-minded lawyers with an international network and breadth of legal experience that is unparalleled at other law firms.

[Feedback: This is pretty generic.  With the exception of Slaughter and May, every Magic Circle firm has (1) stellar client lists, (2) full-service practice areas and (3) international offices.  It’s better to focus on the things that make a law firm different to its competitors.  So for Freshfields, you should put more emphasis on the eight seat training contract and explain why that’s a good idea.]

After attending the Freshfields presentation at Durham, and speaking to your trainees at the law fair, I now know that Freshfields is where I want to be.

[Feedback: This application is a good example of where a candidate has lots of relevant experience but does not use it effectively.  The underlying role of an application is to sell the reader on why they should interview you in person.  It’s not simply a history of your personal achievements like in this application.

While the question does not invite discussion of why you have chosen a career in law, we think it is helpful to touch on it here.  In this case, we would weave it into the middle part of the answer where the candidate talks about his work experience.]

In no more than 850 words, consider "Why Me, Why Freshfields and Why Commercial Law" as the basis of your Personal Statement. You may also wish to mention any positions of responsibility held at school or subsequently, any regular employment or other work experience and any achievements, interests and personal qualities which are relevant.

Whilst interning at [redacted law firm],[redacted southeast Asian country] ’s leading law firm, I was exposed to a commercial lawyer’s work in navigating a client through a broad spectrum of business activities. This motivated me to understand how lawyers provide holistic guidance. Interning at [redacted law firm in southeast Asia], a member of [law firm group], I analysed [redacted country]’s upcoming COVID-19 Bill and assisted in advising on a tenancy dispute involving multinational corporations on the ideal way to initiate a proceeding before the Bill was implemented, and how our clients’ goals for expansion into other areas in [redacted country] could continue to be met given that the party in dispute was instrumental in facilitating this growth. I developed a deep appreciation for the advisory role of commercial lawyers in demonstrating a thorough understanding of their client’s interests, the evolving nature of legal landscapes and commercial markets to ensure their client stays ahead of the curve. 

Feedback:The aim of this first paragraph looks good, as it directly addresses one of the question’s core elements from the outset (namely “Why commercial law?”). First, you should note how the candidate outlines and explains their point from the outset. We are immediately told that the candidate is interested in commercial law because they provide holistic guidance to business clients. This is substantiated by an example from the candidate’s work experience, which contextualises and personalises the candidate’s motivations. In turn, this adds structure to the candidate’s paragraph and makes it easier for the recruiter to follow the candidate’s subsequent argument. In the same fashion, you should follow the PEEL/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link). You should state your motivational reason from the outset, before substantiating it with detailed personal examples and tailored analysis.

You should also note the quality of evidence that the candidate uses. The candidate summarises relevant commercial law work experience at the beginning. Then, the candidate zooms in on a specific example flowing from their assistance on the COVID-19 Bill. This provides specific, quantifiable evidence demonstrating that the candidate has a genuine interest in commercial law. Then, the candidate pivots their analysis around this specific example. They explain (1) what they did, (2) how their interest in the point developed from that example and (3) precisely what interested them about the example and why it did so. This persuades the recruiter that the candidate has a sustained and concrete interest in commercial law, which is reinforced by specific evidence and personalised examples. In your own writing, you must go beyond simply asserting that you have an abstract interest in commercial law. You should instead identify specific and high-quality personal evidence for your interest in commercial law, before analysing how your interest developed from that example.

The candidate’s writing is also coherent and well-structured, with the PEEL/AL system offering a clear framework. The candidate states their point immediately. Then, the candidate identifies specific evidence before analysing/explaining how their interest in the point developed from the example. Finally, the candidate includes a neat linking sentence to tie their evidence back in with the original point. At no point does the candidate lose focus – they stick to just one point per paragraph.  In your own writing, you should follow PEEL/AL closely and use just one point per paragraph. This will result in a coherent paragraph that the recruiter can follow (and so be persuaded by) more easily. 

As a point for improvement, the candidate’s central point needs to be better tailored to commercial law. The candidate asserts an interest in commercial law because they “navigate clients through a broad spectrum of business activities”. The candidate explains at the end that they then “developed a deep appreciation for the advisory role of commercial lawyers”, before asserting that they want a “thorough understanding of their client’s interests”. The issue is that none of these features are truly unique to commercial law. You would be assisting clients with their business activities just as much in consulting or finance as you would in commercial law. The candidate does give passing mention to “legal landscapes” at the end, but they never explain what they mean by this nor why this specific aspect of commercial law interests them. This means that the candidate’s point needs to be tailored to commercial law. As a rule, if you can swap out “commercial law” with another career path then your writing is not tailored enough. You must centre your analysis around specific, unique elements of commercial law.

Attending an Open Day at [redacted Magic Circle firm (not Freshfields)], I was drawn to the emphasis on how facilitating and maintaining long-lasting client relationships characterised a commercial lawyer’s success. The key to my success in establishing my Personal Statement Advisory business has been building these very relationships with my own clients. I developed a 3-session plan directed towards understanding my clients background, life experiences and how they can reflect the best version of themselves on paper. My efforts have resulted in 75% of clients returning for other applications, and receiving unconditional offers from [redacted RG universities including one of Oxford/Cambridge]. Work where building and maintaining strong client relationships is a key component is what I am best suited to and where my skills lie. That this is the essence of a commercial lawyer’s career makes me confident that this is the path for me.

Feedback: As with the previous paragraph, the candidate does well in identifying their motivational point from the outset. The candidate then identifies and explains a specific personal example. Then, the candidate explains (1) precisely what they did during their business activities, (2)  what they found interesting about it and (3) how that ultimately ties back in with that their interest in the original point (namely their interest in building and maintaining client relationships). This results in a coherent, well-structured and persuasive paragraph that illustrates the candidate’s firm interest in commercial law.

However, this paragraph is slightly weaker than the previous in a couple of regards:

1. It isn’t clear what part of the question the candidate is trying to address. They begin by stating a point of interest in commercial law. However, the candidate’s writing then gears towards competencies/the “Why me?” part of the question. They seem to write about their experience using the STAR structure, before explaining (1) the specific outcome and (2) that they learned how to build client relationships from this experience. It is unclear precisely why building client relationships is interesting to the candidate. This all means that the candidate’s writing is a little confused and unfocused. In your own cover letters, you should address each part of the question separately by using distinct paragraphs for each. This will make your cover letter well-structured and easy to follow.

2. The candidate shoehorns an outcome into their answer (namely that they received a 75% success rate), before also mentioning that the clients received Oxbridge/RG university offers. It’s not clear how this explains the candidate’s motivations for commercial law. The candidate might have been better off using this example as a separate “Why me?” paragraph, where they would be expected to describe this example using STAR.

3. As with the previous paragraph, the candidate’s reasoning is not tailored enough to commercial law. You would be expected to “build client relationships” in any industry, not just the legal sector. As such, the candidate needed to explain (1) why this feature is unique to commercial law and (2) why that unique feature encouraged them to pursue a career in commercial law. The candidate’s asserted interest in “building client relationships” does not go far enough in explaining their interest in commercial law.

As a rule, you should address each element of the cover letter separately by using distinct paragraphs. Each paragraph should distinctly address (1) why commercial law, (2) why law firm and (3) why you. There should be little-to-no crossover between each paragraph. This will prevent your writing from becoming muddled and confusing.

I find commercial law the underpinning factor of trendsetting market practices. Working as a legal content writer for the accredited legal blog [redacted blog site] I wrote an article on the rumoured acquisition between PayPal and Pinterest that confounded many. Upon analysing PayPal’s transactions and commercial aspirations, it was evident that the acquisition would have allowed them to enter the emerging social commerce market. This attempted collaboration exemplifies how commercial law facilitates the creation of new opportunities. The promise of varied work every day and the chance to engage with unchartered commercial opportunities motivates me to pursue commercial law as a career.

Feedback:This paragraph has similar strengths to the previous. Once again, the candidate structures their paragraph sensibly using the PEEL/AL structure. This results in a focused, coherent paragraph that is easy for the recruiter to follow (and so be persuaded by). As with previous paragraphs, the candidate does well to centre their analysis around a specific personal example. The candidate identifies (1) a specific example of an interesting deal they researched, before (2) explaining what elements of the PayPal-Pinterest deal interested them and (3) why that deal interested them. Then, the candidate makes an effort to link that deal back in with commercial law.  You should aim for similar levels of specificity in your own writing. If you can hone in on specific and detailed examples from your extracurricular/work experience, then you will persuade the recruiter that you have a sustained interest in commercial law.

However, this paragraph suffers from a couple of weaknesses. First, the candidate needs to draw a better connection between their example and their interest in commercial law. Currently, it’s unclear how the example relates to commercial law. The candidate identifies a deal and discusses some interesting features, but they never explain (1) precisely how commercial lawyers were involved in that deal nor (2) how the deal ultimately developed their interest in commercial law. Instead, the candidate focuses on generic features of the deal. It’s not clear how the candidate’s assertion that “commercial law facilitates new opportunities” follows from their previous writing. As such, the candidate should have drawn a tighter link between the example and their interest in commercial law.

Secondly, the candidate’s reason is not tailored enough to commercial law. Nearly every career path in the City will involve “trendsetting market practices” and “varied work on unchartered commercial opportunities”. These are not unique features of commercial law. In your own writing, you need to make sure that you identify specific and unique features of commercial law. This will convince the recruiter that you have researched commercial law and discounted other career paths in favour of it.

Freshfields represents the ideal firm to engage with ground-breaking work of this sort. Speaking to Alastair Brown at ‘An Evening with Freshfield’ this year, I was amazed at his account of his involvement on the first ever asset transfer deal in Myanmar for Colgate, and how he travelled the country extensively to understand the governments requirements when executing the deal, all when he was just an associate. The prospect of being exposed to such complex and transformative work from very early in my career is why I am assured I will receive first-rate training at Freshfields.

Feedback: The candidate now moves towards addressing the “Why Freshfields” element of the question. As with the “why commercial law?” section, the candidate structures this paragraph sensibly using PEEL/AL. You should particularly note how the candidate develops their initial point. Not only do they assert an interest in Freshfields work, but they substantiate it by discussing a specific and personal experience with the firm. They identify a named event with a specific Freshfields lawyer, before (1) identifying a specific deal discussed at that event and (2) explaining what they found interesting about it. In your own writing, you should always go beyond simply name-dropping deals that the firm has done. You should explain precisely what features of the deal interest you, before analysing how those features make Freshfields unique and why said features appeal to you.

However, the candidate’s reasoning needs to be tailored to Freshfields more closely. It is currently quite generic. First, the candidate never goes beyond explaining that they are interested in Freshfields’ “ground-breaking” and “transformative” work. These are subjective opinions that could apply just as equally to any Magic Circle law firm. Most of these firms will be working on similarly complex and “ground-breaking” work. The candidate’s Colgate/Myanmar example also does not go far enough in tailoring their reasoning to Freshfields. All Magic Circle firms attract similarly complex and multi-jurisdictional work to the Colgate asset transfer deal. The majority of Magic Circle firms will also offer similar opportunities for ad-hoc travel at associate level. As such, the candidate needed to go much further in explaining how that deal makes Freshfields a unique firm.

Upon meeting Freshfields at [redacted RG university] Law Society’s ‘Know the City’, I gained a deeper understanding of the firms unrivalled trainee development and structure. One thing that intrigues me is the incorporation of Corporate, Finance and Real Estate into a singular Global Transactions team. This facilitates a much smoother workflow, creating more efficient services for clients and the opportunity for trainees to get involved with a range of work at once. Freshfields unique 8-seat training contract bolsters this training exposure. The chance to delve into a range of legal fields, explore transactional and contentious aspects of practice, and work across the many jurisdictions Freshfields deals with will allow me to make the best decision with regards to my future as a commercial lawyer.

Feedback:This paragraph is an improvement on the previous. This time, the candidate not only identifies a personal experience with Freshfields but they later develop and tailor it. The candidate identifies two unique features of Freshfields, namely its integrated Global Transactions Team and its unique 8-seat structure. This demonstrates that the candidate has carried out specific research into Freshfields and has identified unique appealing features as a result. In turn, this persuades the recruiter that the candidate has made a specific, strategic decision to apply to Freshfields as opposed to any other firm.

However, the candidate’s writing is unfocused and lacks development in numerous points. This is because the candidate has opted for breadth over depth. They have crammed two entirely separate reasons for being interested in Freshfields, namely (1) its departmental structure and (2) its training contract structure. The candidate only makes simple and underdeveloped assertions about each feature (owing to word count restrictions). For instance, the candidate identifies a benefit of the Global Transactions structure but never explains why it personally interests them. Similarly, the candidate identifies a generic benefit of the 8-seat structure without ever tying it back in with their own interests. The candidate offers no personal evidence/examples in support of their interest in each point. As a result, much of this paragraph is vague and lacking in thorough analysis.

In your own writing, you should stick to one point per paragraph. Each point should be developed in full using the PEEL/AL structure. Had the candidate separated each point into distinct paragraphs, they would have been able to develop each point fully using personalised examples.

Considering the increasing application of legal tech in creating client solutions, it is vital for me to evaluate how law firms are reacting to such change to secure their own future in the industry. ‘Freshfields Focus’ 2021 on Technology and Innovation offered great insight into the firm’s digital transformation strategy to provide greater value to clients whilst facilitating efficiency internally. The use of Kira increasing efficiency up to 40% and Freshfields Lab’s wide collaboration with tech start-ups exemplifies this process. The drive to continuously innovate and implement technology in delivering outstanding legal services is another reason why I am keen on pursuing my career at Freshfields.

Feedback: The candidate now moves onto their final reason for Freshfields, namely its legal technology approach. We are impressed by the depth of research throughout this paragraph. The candidate takes a generic point about legal tech, before substantiating it with specific and detailed research into Freshfields’ strategy. First, the candidate identifies a specific and named Freshfields event that they attended. Given that the candidate has identified other events elsewhere in the answer, this now demonstrates the candidate’s sustained and long-term personal interest in Freshfields. Then, the candidate identifies (1) a specific Freshfields technology scheme and (2) a precise and quantified statistic illustrating how technology has improved Freshfields’ processes. You should aim for similar levels of specificity and depth in your own writing. If you can develop your points with specific research, then you will tailor your writing and demonstrate a serious interest in the firm.

However, this paragraph has two points for improvement. First, the candidate needed to explain why Freshfields’ legal technology strategy interests them. The candidate asserts that they are interested in “Freshfields’ drive to continuously innovate and implement technology”. However, the candidate never goes any further in explaining this. Without any personal examples backing up the candidate’s interest in technology, it is unclear (1) why the candidate has any interest in this feature of Freshfields nor (2) how that feature developed the candidate’s personal interest in the firm. In your own writing, you need to go beyond simply asserting an interest in the firm. You must instead substantiate your interest with specific personal examples.

Secondly, the paragraph is missing some comparative analysis. The candidate states that Kira has “increased efficiency by up to 40%”, but it would have been helpful for the candidate to contextualise it and compare Freshfields’ successes against other Magic Circle firms. Simply put, most City firms have successful legal technology strategies with demonstratable positive results. This is not a unique feature of Freshfields. As such, the candidate needed to go further in explaining precisely how Freshfields’ legal technology successes make it unique.

As Chambers Careers Officer of the [redacted university] Law Society in [redacted year], I aimed to bring awareness to the barrister route and contribute to improving accessibility to and diversity in this field. To achieve this, I launched the Society’s first ever ‘Mentoring Scheme’, where I assigned 16 candidates from underrepresented backgrounds to other students who had mini pupillage/ pupillage experience. By working with my team of Junior Mooting Officers, we contacted and successfully recruited 20 barristers from top sets like Doughty Street Chambers and 3 Verulam Buildings to act as barrister mentors. The scheme was incredibly successful, with a 97% satisfaction rate reported by both mentees and mentors via feedback forms I distributed. Our efforts led to the [redacted university] Law Society being nominated for the LawCareers.Net [redacted year] ‘Best Careers Events’ award.

Feedback: The candidate now addresses the final element of the question, namely “Why me?”. This is a strong paragraph with very few weaknesses. First, you should note how the candidate gets straight into an example rather than simply listing out their skills to the recruiter. In turn, this means the recruiter can freely infer a variety of competencies from the candidate’s writing. In your own writing, you must prove that you have skills/competencies by identifying a specific example and dissecting the exact steps you took throughout. This allows the recruiter to interpret your skills from the various steps/actions that you took.

The candidate also makes good use of the STAR structure (situation, task, action, result) in two regards. First, the candidate describes their steps/actions in specific and quantified numerical detail. We are given the complete context surrounding (1) the number of people this candidate worked with and (2) the specific number of barristers this candidate recruited into the scheme. This gives the recruiter an insight into the scale of this candidate’s actions, which in turn makes it more persuasive.

Secondly, the candidate describes the results of their actions exceptionally well. You should note the level of detail and specificity used by the candidate. Not only does the candidate identify a specific statistical success rate of 97%, but they also identify a named and specific award nomination that they received as a direct consequence of the candidate’s actions. In your own writing, you should describe the result in similar levels of detail. You should give the recruiter a complete insight into your achievements. Where possible, this should include numerical and statistical details that quantify your results. In turn, this will substantiate your actions and add persuasive weight to your writing.

However, the candidate needed to provide further details on the steps/actions they took. Currently, the candidate’s steps/actions are quite vague and generic. We are given relatively little insight into the candidate’s own actions, beyond the fact that they simply “worked with their team” and “contacted/recruited barristers”. At no point does the candidate tell us (1) the specific challenges they faced, nor (2) the specific methods of teamwork they used or (3) the strategies they used to recruit barristers. Most of the marks for competency questions lie in the actions, as recruiters will read your steps/actions and infer your skills from them. As such, you need to unpack your actions in as much specific detail as possible.

Why have you chosen to apply to Gateley? (200 words max)*

My interest in Gateley stems from the firm's focus on residential and commercial development, acting for 18 of the top 20 largest UK house builders, including Barratt and Bellway. Having completed an internship in this area, I was involved in contract drafting and enjoyed the complexity of the legal work governing a large infrastructure projects. I have thus fostered an interest in this area field and have chosen to complete an advanced commercial property elective at BPP.

Feedback: The candidate correctly identifies one of the areas of commercial law in which Gateley excels, and expresses their interest therein in a clear, easy to follow manner. At the same time, they showcase the extent of their research into the firm by referencing precise figures regarding the make-up of its clientele and by giving examples of its clients. Notably, the candidate links their interest in the work undertaken by the firm back to personal insights, including their relevant professional and academic experiences, which increases the likelihood of their answer being perceived as genuine. To take their answer to the next level, the candidate could have placed a greater deal of emphasis on the particular aspects of residential and commercial development that appeal to them rather than simply stating that they appreciate the complexity of the area.

Gateley's trainee intake of 25 across offices with a wide trainee seat rotation is appealing to me. The comparatively small trainee intake means that I would be exposed to a range of legal and non-legal responsibilities which would benefit my professional development. I would also build on my commercial acumen when engaging with Gateley's non-legal arms.

Feedback: The candidate accurately describes the perks of working at a firm with a relatively small trainee intake such as Gateley, showcasing their reasonable understanding of the role for which they are applying. To tailor their answer to firm, the candidate could have referenced any of the particularities of the training contract offered by Gateley, such as its learning and development courses, its emphasis on providing trainees with the opportunity to work directly with clients, or its client secondment offering. To improve their answer, the candidate could have explained why “a wide trainee seat rotation” appeals to them rather than simply stating that it does. They could have also elaborated on the prospect of “engaging with Gateley’s non-legal arms”, given that it is one of the firm’s unique selling points within the legal market.

I was also interested to see that Gateley has an office in Dubai which could is bound to grow with the recent changes in the UAE business laws. Having completed internships in Dubai and being bilingual, I am excited by the prospects of liaising with the firm's Dubai office.

Feedback: The candidate does well to pick up on Gateley’s international strategy, given that the firm boasts eleven offices with only one of them being located overseas, in Dubai. To take their answer to the next level, the candidate could have reflected upon the reasoning behind that strategy by asking themselves questions e.g., “Why Dubai and not a different city in a different country?”. Nonetheless, the candidate boosts the strength of their answer by linking their interest in Gateley’s Dubai office back to themselves; they share relevant personal insights, including their previous work experience in the city and their bilingualism, which lend credibility to their answer and highlight their own unique selling points. For emphasis, the candidate could have mentioned which other language they speak rather than simply stating that they are bilingual, though this is a relatively minor point because it can be easily deduced from the context.  

Why are you interested in pursuing a career at Herbert Smith Freehills and what skills, qualities and attributes would you bring to the role?  (Up to 300 words)

HSF has always stood out to me as a firm I want to work at. I was inspired to pursue a career at HSF by ex-HSF lawyer, Ian Gatt QC, when I was routinely invited to HSF's offices as part of the Times Advocacy Competition.I want to work as part of HSF as part of its elite dispute resolution department. Having gained prior insight into international arbitration with Allen & Overy, I wanted to apply toHSF for its dispute resolution practice areas, as I feel that the support and training at HSF,mixed with the type of high level of work undertaken, would suit me best.Having spoken to some HSF trainees, I know that the HSF training and support is unparalleled, giving trainees the opportunity to have client contact and participate in actual legal practice, rather than restricting them solely to administration tasks.

[Feedback:  This is a difficult question to answer because it’s two questions in one: (1) why HSF and (2) why you.  The seemingly generous 300 word limit is actually quite tight.

We like that the candidate identifies a personal connection with the firm.  The example here is the gold standard, but it’s equally worthwhile to refer to any meaningful conversations that you have had with trainees, solicitors or partners at the firm.  It’s even worth mentioning virtual interactions with the firms (e.g. an online talk by a partner at the firm) but the burden of proof about why this made the firm resonate with you is higher here. 

What distinguishes HSF’s dispute resolution team from A&O’s?  That’s not answered here, but the candidate might be asked to describe the difference at interview given that his answer invites the question.]

The skills, qualities, and attributes, I would bring to the role are: An unshakeable work ethic – every firm will require its employees to work hard, but I pride myself on going above an beyond the tasks I am set. I love to work and multitask, yet I always maintain the highest degree of excellence. This is typified by my rapid promotions, to leadership roles, in University organisations.

A passion for law – although many students will have an interest in law, I believe that I have a huge love for the law, especially from the perspective of a ‘non-law’ student. I am dedicated to learning more about law, both academically and practically, and my work experience and activities showcase this.

Collaboration with all – I love to work with others. Although I am self-motivated and can work alone when needed, I do love to collaborate with a team to share in new ideas, and share success.

[Feedback: We like the structure that the applicant adopts here.  It’s clear and easy to follow. 

There is a typo “...above an beyond..” which is an unfortunate but passable error in this application.  Lawyers are typically perfectionists, but the candidate has got away with this typo because the rest of his application is so strong.

Although hamstrung by the word count, the candidate should provide specific examples of how he can demonstrate the skill in question.  You could use Harvard referencing here to save words.  For example, “I am dedicated to learning more about law, both academically and practically, and my work experience and activities showcase this” (name of firm where candidate carried out relevant work experience, year).]

Why are you interested in pursuing a career at Herbert Smith Freehills? (Up to 300 words).

By speaking with [graduate recruitment assistant] at Legal Cheeks Law Fair, HSF's focus on energy was clarified. This solidified my interest in the firm as, by working for an energy supplier over the past year, I have developed an enthusiasm for the industry. While at the company, I connected with the Head of Regulation and Compliance and enjoyed discussing his obligations in aligning business operations with energy policy. My dissertation on the environmental impacts of foreign policy reflects my regard for ESG, a trend challenging the more traditional oil and gas clients of HSF, such as BP. As Energy Law Firm of the Year 2019, the firm's expertise would nurture my interest into a legal capability.

Feedback: This answer is effective because it is largely well-substantiated and it is structured in a clear, logical manner that enables the reader to follow the candidate’s train of thought with relative ease. In the first paragraph, the candidate expresses their interest in the work undertaken by HSF within the energy industry, though it is likely that they are thinking of the energy sector; the former term refers to a group of similar businesses whilst the latter term refers to a large segment of the economy. We recommend that you double-check your use of jargon or technical terms in your answer in order to ensure that it is correct. Nonetheless, we recommend that you follow the candidate’s approach in terms of discussing the work undertaken by the firm within a given sector (e.g., energy) or a given area (e.g., commercial arbitration) as part of your answer; as a trainee solicitor, you will spend most of your time engaging with the firm’s work, so it is paramount that you express your interest therein forcefully as part of your answer.

By mentioning the fact that their interest was solidified after speaking with a firm representative at a law fair, the candidate cleverly highlights their willingness to go the extra mile to research HSF. By providing an example of an accolade received by HSF in relation to its work within the energy sector, the candidate further showcases their research into the firm and bolsters the strength of their point. Crucially, the candidate links their point regarding the work undertaken by the firm to relevant personal insights, including their own work experience and studies. In doing so, they lend credibility to their point and allow the recruiter a glimpse into their personality; this increases the likelihood of their application standing out as authentic and genuine.

To achieve a similar effect, we recommend that you integrate all the elements of the “PEEL” structure (“point”, “evidence”, “explanation”, “link”) in your answer, as the candidate does in this case. If you feel less comfortable in your writing, we recommend that you tackle them in their nominal order.

HSF's international contentious work is another attracting factor. The firm's recent success for the Kingdom of Spain in arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty has helped form my view of the client profile that HSF represents. Through electives in economy, law and security during my study of International Relations, I was absorbed by the complexity of reconciling interstate relations, supranational obligations and national interests. At HSF, the seven distinct specialisms within disputes would enable me to explore my enthusiasm for global affairs in practice.

Feedback: In the second paragraph, the candidate expresses their interest in “HSF’s international contentious work”. To avoid using ambiguous language, the candidate could have expressed their interest in the work undertaken by the firm’s global dispute resolution practice. Nonetheless, they do well to provide an example of the kind of non-commoditised disputes HSF helps resolve and to explain their own inclination towards helping resolve such disputes through a link to their multi-disciplinary academic experience. To further showcase their research into the firm, the candidate could have emphasised the fact that HSF attracts high-profile clients, such as the Kingdom of Spain, thanks to the magnitude and strength of its expertise in dispute resolution within the legal market. For emphasis, the candidate could have also highlighted the fact that HSF stands out from its competitors because its dispute resolution practice includes an in-house advocacy team made up of QCs, inter alia.

During the IRIS Open Day, I discussed with trainee solicitor Marie Badr about how diversity and social responsibility permeate throughout the firm. As an open lesbian, it is crucial that I can bring my identity to work, and as a 2020 Stonewall Top Global Employer, HSF displays genuine inclusivity. Moreover, pro bono is ingrained in the firm's culture through projects such as the Whitechapel Legal Advice Clinic. My dedication to volunteering is evident as an adviser for BPPs Enterprise Legal Advice Clinic and Citizens Advice. At HSF, I would be empowered to continue doing so throughout my legal career.

Feedback: In the final paragraph, the candidate expresses their interest in the initiatives taken by HSF in relation to Diversity and Inclusion (“D&I”), as well as Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”). Echoing the comments made supra, the candidate does well to cite the most recent accolade received by the firm in relation to its D&I efforts and its involvement with the Whitechapel Legal Advice Clinic in support of their point, and to subsequently link that point to relevant personal insights, such as their own volunteering experience. Importantly, the candidate references their attendance at an open day and their interaction with a trainee solicitor in order to substantiate their discussion of HSF’s culture. We recommend that you avoid discussing the culture of a firm solely on the basis of its recruitment and/or marketing materials because your answer will likely be perceived as disingenuous and far-fetched. If you have not attended an event at the firm or interacted with firm representatives, we recommend that you discuss the work, training and/or unique selling points of the firm instead. 

Why are you interested in pursuing a career at Herbert Smith Freehills? (Up to 300 words, inclusive of character limit)

Reputationally, Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) is the best place to be a litigator, an area of personal interest since interning at an offshore dispute resolution firm. Subsequently, HSF is the trusted advisor for market-leading clients to handle global, complex cases. Underpinning this expertise is HSF’s transcending efforts to cultivate dispute talent, having created the first in-house advocacy unit in 2005. I’m motivated by this exciting opportunity to hone my advocacy skills alongside the firm’s prestigious full-service training.

Feedback: This is a typical motivational question requiring you to explain 2-3 reasons for your interest in HSF, using the PEEL structure (point, evidence, explanation, link). The candidate pushes that limit by identifying three reasons. They still cover each point in reasonable depth, but we believe the candidate spreads themselves too thinly throughout the answer. This means the candidate’s quality of analysis suffers in places. If you are facing a 250-word or 300-word limit, we usually advise candidates to stick to two in-depth reasons. This will allow you to develop each point in full before tying it in with personalised examples.

Starting with this first paragraph, the candidate does well to state their point from the outset. It is clear from the get-go that the candidate wants to join HSF because it is strong in litigation. Not only does this allow the candidate to focus their writing, but it also means that the candidate can develop a coherent argument during the remainder of the answer.

Secondly, you should note how the candidate tries to tailor their writing towards HSF specifically. They do this by identifying HSF as the first firm to create an in-house advocacy unit in 2005. This goes some way in making the candidate’s writing specific to HSF; it helps differentiate HSF from other strong disputes firm in the market. In your own writing, you should tailor your point towards your chosen firm by deploying specific, detailed and unique facts about it.

However, this paragraph suffers in a few regards:

1. The candidate tries to weave in a personalised example but does not provide enough detail on it. They merely assert that they are “personally interested” in litigation because they “interned” at an offshore dispute resolution firm. This does nothing to explain what the candidate found interesting about their internship, nor does it explain how that experience ultimately ties in with HSF. In your own writing, you need to use personalised and specific examples that clearly demonstrate how your interest in the firm developed.

2. The candidate’s writing is not tailored enough to HSF. The candidate asserts that HSF is a “trusted advisor” for “market-leading clients”, but does nothing further to explain what makes HSF’s litigation team unique. In fact, you could just as easily swap out HSF with any other strong disputes firm and this paragraph would make just as much sense (e.g. Freshfields, Hogan Lovells). The candidate name-drops HSF’s in-house advocacy unit but otherwise leaves this point unexplained. As a thumb, if your writing can be applied to competitor firms just as easily then it is not specific enough.

3. The candidate’s point includes a bold assertion that HSF is the “best place to be a litigator”. This is not an objective fact. There are many firms in the City that attract the highest quality of disputes work and the best rankings to boot. As such, the candidate would have needed to explain why they think HSF is the best firm to be a litigator before tying that analysis back in with their own experiences.

I am also attracted to HSF because it is at the forefront of digital innovation. At the Digital Open Day, I spoke to Tuna Kastal about the firm’s partnership with Solomonic, creating artificial intelligence to analyse existing data to enable litigators to predict outcomes and improve strategies, shaping the future of disputes. Without the firm’s global initiative empowering employees to focus on innovation projects for ten days a year, such achievements would be impossible. I believe there has never been a more exciting time to join HSF, who is in the pole position to help clients navigate disruption regarding legal technology, as I learnt on HSF’s Digital Law Course.

Feedback:  The candidate starts to improve this paragraph by tailoring their writing to HSF. You should note how the candidate uses two high-quality personal experiences at HSF:

1. The candidate discusses their experience at HSF’s Digital Open Day. Here, the candidate develops their initial point by explaining precisely how HSF is at the “forefront of digital innovation” and why that makes HSF unique against other firms in the field. You should also note the level of detail the candidate goes into. The candidate names both a trainee and a specific example of the firm’s partnership with a tech company. This level of detail tailors the candidate’s writing and makes it hard to apply this point to other competitors in the market.

2. The candidate then gives passing mention to their attendance on HSF’s Digital Law Course. Though the candidate never explains precisely what they learned during this, it nonetheless demonstrates the candidate’s genuine long-running commitment to the firm.

By using detailed and personalised research, the candidate demonstrates that they have seriously researched HSF and considered a career there. This persuades the recruiter that the candidate will stick with HSF for the foreseeable future.

However, this paragraph’s central weakness lies in the lack of personal examples. The candidate asserts an interest in digital innovation throughout the paragraph, but never explains how they developed this interest nor why it appeals to them. The candidate makes several assertions about how there has “never been a more exciting time to join the firm”, without ever really explaining why it specifically appeals to them. You should always follow the PEEL structure carefully to avoid this issue. This will help you introduce specific, personalised examples that illustrate precisely how your law firm motivations developed.

The candidate also spends much of this paragraph telling the firm facts it already knows about itself. The candidate mentions that they “spoke” to a trainee about this innovation programme and outlines some achievements arising from it, but they never actually explain what interests them about it nor why. It is not enough simply to name-drop facts about the firm. They must contribute to your overall argument about why the firm appeals to you.

As a minor point, the candidate’s writing is long-winded in places. The candidate should have broken up sentences and varied their structures. This would make their writing clearer and easier to read.

Having worked as the campus ambassador at Durham, and building a strong relationship with HSF, I can genuinely envision working and progressing at the firm. I value HSF’s collegiate, supportive and inclusive culture which deriving from a commitment to diversity. I appreciate HSF’s implementation of global targets such as reaching 35% female partnership by May 2030, presently working as Solicitor Events Manager of Durham’s Women in Law Society. Furthermore, as I am currently researching the Ukrainian human trafficking crisis with Lawyers Without Borders, I enjoyed speaking to Molly Freeman at the Durham networking evening about the firm’s support of the UNHCR and Rule 39 initiative. At HSF, I would be empowered to continue making a social impact in areas I am passionate.

Feedback: In this paragraph, the candidate improves their writing in a couple of regards:

1. The candidate re-introduces specific, high-quality and personalised extra-curricular experiences. These tell the story about how the candidate’s interest in diversity developed. It also creates a clear link between the candidate’s experiences and the candidate’s interest in HSF’s diversity initiatives.

2. The candidate tries to tailor this paragraph by painting it with specific named initiatives, facts and statistics relevant to HSF. This goes at least some way in differentiating HSF from competing firms in the City market.

However, the central issue with this paragraph is that it is extremely difficult to tailor points about diversity/culture to firms. This is because nearly every major City firm will have a comprehensive diversity strategy of some kind. As such, it’s incredibly difficult for you to explain why one firm’s diversity strategy stands out to you against another. The candidate tries to do this by name-dropping statistics and named initiatives. However, the issue is that many other firms will be posting similar statistics and will have similar affinity groups/initiatives. As such, HSF’s name could be just as easily swapped out with any other firm that has a successful diversity strategy. There’s no harm in writing about diversity, but your argument would have to rely on unique facts about the firm or achievements that no other firm has reached.

The candidate’s structure is also messy in this paragraph. The candidate leads in with a personal example straight away, before asserting that they envisage themselves working at HSF. Then, they introduce a new point about HSF’s “inclusive culture”. Finally, the candidate introduces some personal examples before ending the paragraph with examples of the “social impact” work that HSF does. This means it is hard to make out exactly what the candidate’s argument is. For avoidance of doubt, you should stick to one point per paragraph before using the PEEL structure to develop these in full.

Why do you think you are suited to HFW? 400 words

Firstly, I am attracted to the sectors which HFW advises within. Subsequent to working in the Shipping department at Birketts LLP, I developed an interest in shipping and logistics. I worked on cases ranging from a ship high jacking in the Indian Ocean to a claim for a period of off hire for a time charter in the Indian Ocean. This work spawned my desire of ensuring that I work at a firm which provides a wide array of expertise on shipping and logistics matters which interest me. HFW does this by advising on dry shipping, commercial disputes and crisis management. Being Band 1 for Shipping and for Transport: Logistics, the caliber of work which HFW attracts, including acting for Bonny Gas Transport on what was the largest-ever refinancing of LNG ships, appeals to me as I know my ambition will be sated.

[Feedback: The candidate has written a relatively well-argued answer with some good use of personal experience to justify their claims. What the candidate correctly identifies is that the question asks, ‘why this firm?’ in a non-standard way. Traditionally, this question would invite some discussion about the candidate’s skills, abilities, competencies, and so on. However, considering that ‘why this firm?’ has not been asked in the rest of this application, the question is clearly inviting the candidate to delve into the work, training and culture of HFW.

The candidate’s answer is easy to follow and makes a clear argument: the candidate is interested in shipping, and HFW is very good at shipping. However, the answer could have benefited from some extra detail surrounding why shipping, as a practice area, interests the candidate. Remember, whilst having prior experience of something is great evidence for your claim, it is still essential for you to explain how that evidence substantiates your claim.

Consequently, the linking point is weak due to a lack of development about why shipping is interesting for the candidate. Whilst doing the kind of work you like is great, you need to properly link back to why doing that kind of work at HFW is something that you want to do. Lots of firms will be in the top tier for shipping/maritime law; therefore, what exactly about HFW’s work interests you? The candidate has written about a deal, and it would have been great for the candidate to have developed this evidence, discussing the unique things that HFW accomplished, how such things are representative of the way the firm works, and why that is attractive for the candidate.

Finally, you must make sure that the quality of your writing remains high throughout your application form. In the paragraph, the candidate makes some errors, such as ‘high jacking’ (which should be ‘hijacking’). Even if you are an international student, law firms will hold you to the same high standards of written English, and you will be marked down by the recruiter for typos, and spelling and grammar mistakes.

Secondly, I align with HFW’s approach of organizing the firm around its clients. Beyond in-house workshops and regular reviews, I admire HFW’s complete sector focus, enabling its teams to truly focus on the field of clients’ businesses rather than on their own broad-brush services. The collaboration of combining knowledge between different individual teams which is compelled by this approach, ensures the efficient and tailored delivery of services and advice to the totality of clients’ projects. As the captain of the University of Bristol’s Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Club, I have utilised a similar approach. I encouraged collaboration between different arms of the committee in order to meet diverse member demands. Moreover, I believe in the effectiveness of HFW’s around the clock availability in providing confidence to clients in case of emergencies. This is especially the case considering HFW’s internationalism. As an adviser at the University of Bristol Law Clinic, on my final case I similarly provided such confidence to a vulnerable client who was in Asia due to urgent family matters. In order to maintain my client’s confidence, I called her at 3am GMT on multiple occasions so that she could provide me with passwords which she did not feel comfortable emailing.

[Feedback: The candidate writes about the unique aspects of HFW’s organisational structure (and how its lawyers operate within) well. The candidate also does very well to link these aspects back to themselves, using personal examples to evidence how they would complement the firm’s traits and add value.

The former half of the answer is the strongest part, and the candidate has clearly reflected on the benefits of a sector-focus. However, the candidate is lacking somewhat with their employed example. Though the example itself is fine, the explanation of it does not quite align with their point. HFW’s sector-focus indicates specialism, whilst the candidate’s example suggests that they took a generalist approach, appealing to more niche demands of members whilst still maintaining their broader core offering.

You should make sure that when you employ personal evidence in your answers you pick examples that are appropriate. If there is any nuance to the evidence that you rely upon to substantiate your claims, then you must spend some of the extra word count on fully developing those examples to ensure that your argumentation “hits home”.

The latter half of the answer is a little weaker. Many law firms will provide ‘around the clock availability’ to their clients, especially in their practice areas which deal with time sensitive contentious matters. Though the candidate does provide a decent example (which could have still done with some development or tweaking to show exactly how that relates to their point about ‘emergencies’), the point itself about HFW is a little too vague.

The candidate might have benefited from using the word count to discuss the firm’s training or culture (as they do in the preceding paragraph) or use the extra space to expound upon what they had written about in the former half of the paragraph.]

Finally, the training programme at HFW is one within which I would flourish. HFW’s efforts to continue trainee development through its structured in-house training programme appeals to my eagerness to continue my professional development. Furthermore, the opportunity for consistent work with international dimensions, along with overseas secondment opportunities, aligns with my enthusiasm for bolstering my international outlook.

[Feedback: This paragraph is noticeably shorter than the previous two. You should remember to develop your points equally so that you do not have any unsubstantiated “tagged on” statements that would let the wider answer down.

Unfortunately, this paragraph, whilst it does make accurate comments about HFW, is too generic. Structured training and international work will be found at any major commercial City law firm.

Furthermore, the relevance to the candidate is also dubious – if the candidate wished to continue with this paragraph, they would have to provide evidence for their ‘eagerness to continue [their] personal development’ and their ‘enthusiasm for bolstering [their] international outlook’. You should remember not to rely on other answers you have given in your application form to evidence later answers implicitly.

Our recommendation to the candidate would either be to cut this paragraph and use the word count to expand upon the candidate’s other points in preceding paragraphs, or to rewrite this paragraph with a focus on specific aspects of HFW’s training and culture. You should remember that if you cannot find anything specific and relatively unique about a firm’s training or culture, then it might not be worth mentioning in order to use the word count more productively elsewhere.]

(Q2) We are looking for ambitious and well-motivated individuals who have a real commitment to the law. What are your three key personal motivations to undertake a training contract at Irwin Mitchell? (2000 characters)

One personal motivation is the focus at Irwin Mitchell on the expert hand with human touch. Volunteering at Citizens Advice with clients with complex needs gave me an insight into the
 practical and personal application of law and helped me realise the importance of building long-lasting relationships with clients. I gained a real sense of the motivations of the firm from its social media channels, which reflect the importance of client and community support. Irwin Mitchell's commitment to changing the law if necessary shows its focus on human touch. I am interested in the Public Law department, which shows innovation in challenging local authorities and central government to protect human rights.

[Feedback: This is a ‘why this firm?’ question. Hence, we would recommend structuring your answer around the following three points:

1.     Your attraction to the firm’s work.

2.     Your attraction to the firm’s training.

3.     Your attraction to the firm’s culture.

You should remember that your answer must be tailored to the firm in question. If you are pulling out characteristics of the firm that are commonly held amongst all commercial law firms then your answer is too non-specific. Recruiters want to read about your understanding of their firm in particular, rather than, in abstraction, all commercial law firms.

This candidate’s answer, unfortunately, lacks specificity. Although the candidate does employ, albeit roughly, a PEE/AL structure, and uses their personal experience to substantiate their claims, their claim about IM is too vague. All commercial law firms will claim to have a ‘human touch’. Furthermore, the candidate does not provide any evidence for this ‘human touch’ – they cite that IM is committed to try to change the law, if necessary, but so are many other commercial law firms who have public policy departments (for example, Clifford Chance). To ensure your answers are strong, you need to be able to draw out the unique selling points of the firm you are applying to – otherwise, as demonstrated here, the answer becomes vague and rather lacklustre.

Additionally, the candidate does not conclude their paragraph appropriately. Whilst the candidate should discuss their attraction to IM’s work, they only mention such attraction in the very last sentence. This is not enough to properly elucidate the candidate’s motivations for wanting to work at the firm – the candidate needs to give evidence for their motivations, explain how that evidence demonstrates their motivations, and finally, link their argument back to the wider question at hand which is ‘why do you want to train at IM?’. You should avoid ‘tagging on’ sentences to your paragraphs – every point you make should be as part of a PEE/AL structure to ensure that your answer is appropriately argued and developed.

Finally, this candidate makes several errors in their writing. The very first sentence of the paragraph is unclear – the candidate appears to be trying to quote IM’s marketing materials or come up with a pithy motto of their own. Either way, it comes across as clunky and obscure. The candidate should lead with drawing the reader’s attention to their motivation, rather than discussing a point of motivation in the abstract with a vague remark. Later in the paragraph, the candidate mentions that IM changes the law ‘if necessary’; however, the requisite commas are not employed to construct the sentence appropriately.

You must proofread your work before submission. As is mentioned throughout this review, small mistakes add up and recruiters will become (if they are not already) increasingly intolerant of such errors. Even if your answer is substantively perfect, one error can cost the whole application. Hence, double-checking your work is of the utmost importance before you decide to send it off.]

The wellbeing support available at Irwin Mitchell stands out to me. As a note taker for disabled students I have an understanding of the need to provide accessibility support. I am impressed by Irwin Mitchell's commitment to a broad range of diversity groups such as IM Able. These are essential to helping colleagues feel safe and able to work to their full potential. Speaking to trainees has highlighted the inclusive and supportive culture of the firm. This focus stands out to me as producing a positive environment and the wellbeing hub demonstrates that this is really taken seriously.

[Feedback:  Similar to the previous paragraph, this answer’s main issue is the lack of specificity with regards to the firm in question. Most commercial law firms now have large diversity networks. Hence, on its own, citing the existence of diversity groups that support disabled individuals is not a sufficient point to form a strong answer on. You must ensure that your points that you choose to answer a ‘why firm?’ question are unique and specific to the firm in question.

Aside from this, the candidate’s explanation and development is quite weak. Although the candidate cites their personal experience, they do not explain why they have that experience. What motivated the candidate to be a note taker for disabled students? What motivates them to help others? How does that align with IM? You should constantly question and interrogate yourself when you are writing your applications to ensure that your argumentation is full developed and unshakeable.

Finally, the candidate needs to include more detail in their answers. Whilst the candidate does cite some specific information, such as ‘IM Able’, they miss out on several opportunities to provide supporting evidence. For example, the candidate does not give an example of what IM Able has done, nor do they name the trainees that they claim they spoke to. This detail is crucial in giving your answers credence and strength. Without it, one could easily turn this into an answer for another commercial law firm’s application by just substituting the firm name.]

Another personal motivation is Irwin Mitchell's innovative approach to business. I am interested in both personal legal issues and business strategy and the firm allows trainees to be involved in both. Daryna Plysaks' co-authored legal technology handbook highlighted to me the forward thinking nature of the firm, which has also demonstrated quick responses to events like the pandemic and implemented innovative schemes such as the digitalisation plans. I am interested in being involved in the innovation forum, to ready the business for the future in legal technology. I am keen to undertake a training contract at the firm given its commitment to and preparation for expansion.

[Feedback: Substantively, this paragraph has some promise. However, the candidate makes the error of cramming too many points into one paragraph.

The main strength of this paragraph, compared to the rest of the answer, is the amount of detail and specificity that has been included. You should note how the candidate provides the names of specific individuals and entities throughout their answer. Furthermore, the candidate has pulled out a really specific point regarding IM’s work – the balance between personal and business work.

However, this strength, unfortunately, is overshadowed by the candidate attempting to cover too many points in too little space. Once again, it is imperative that you stick to a PEE/AL structure to ensure that you give yourself enough room to full develop your answers – depth is always more preferable than breadth.

As the candidate has included too many points, not only are their points underdeveloped, but the thrust of the paragraph is confused and weak. Is the candidate attracted to IM’s balance between personal and business work? Is the candidate attracted to their legal technology and innovation? If it is both, how do the two relate? Although you might think that multiple points are interlinked, you must clearly explain how they are linked – do not leave it up to the recruiter to infer things, as there is a good chance the recruiter will miss what you are saying or make the wrong inference. Either way, you will risk jeopardising your application.]

Our clients have lots of legal advisors to choose from.  As a trainee solicitor you will speak with new clients on a day to day basis, therefore it is important to understand how Irwin Mitchell can support them.

After a busy day at the office, you begin your journey home on the train. The passenger next to you notices you are reading a legal journal and mentions that they are currently looking for a new firm of solicitors as they are not happy with their current firm.

How would you promote Irwin Mitchell to the potential client? (2000 characters)

I would first outline the firm's commitment to understanding and helping individuals and highlight the firm's priority of making a difference to every person and business it supports. I would comment that, as the largest full-service firm in the UK, Irwin Mitchell is best able to provide every type of legal support, both personally and from a business perspective. I would say that this means the potential client would receive one integrated plan which takes into account all of their legal needs. I would say that the multiple locations around the UK mean that the firm is in a great position to be able to help with relevant advice wherever the potential client is based, while also highlighting that the firm is well equipped to deal with legal issues online, by phone and also internationally.

[Feedback: This is an unusual question; however, it most closely resembles a ‘why this firm?’ question, which is strange given the preceding section. It appears as though IM wants candidate’s to home in on the firm’s work and use their answer to this question to demonstrate their deep knowledge of IM’s service offering.

The candidate’s first paragraph covers a variety of areas and makes two main claims:

1.     IM is the UK’s largest full service firm (business and personal legal advice).

2.     IM has multiple UK offices.

Overall, the candidate’s argumentation is decent. The candidate introduces their point about IM and gives a simple explanation of how that could add value to the client.

The main point of improvement for this paragraph pertains to detail. The candidate’s answer, whilst it is relatively straightforward, lacks specificity. For example, whilst the candidate highlights how the client would receive one integrated plan, there is example or evidence given to support this argument. To improve, the candidate could have cited a deal/matter where there were both business and personal aspects that IM had completed to demonstrate the candidate’s true knowledge and appreciation for IM’s full service work. Remember, your answers should not be based solely off the firm’s marketing/graduate recruitment material. Do your own research into the firm’s work by reading press releases and networking with lawyers at the firm.

Another point of improvement concerns writing style. Every sentence in the paragraph begins with ‘I would’ and three of the four sentences start with ‘I would say that’ or ‘I would comment that’. This is poor writing form – remember, law firms are not only assessing the content of your answers but also the way in which you write them. Consequently, you should ensure that your writing has no typographical errors and is written in an engaging, yet professional, manner.

Finally, you should be careful with including too many points in the same paragraph. Your paragraph should follow a clear PEE/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link). If you include too many points, you will not be able to appropriately develop your answers in the allotted word count. This candidate has included two points in the paragraph, and, resultantly, as per the previous comments, their answer lacks development and detail.]

I would also call attention to the recognition the firm has received, such as its recent ranking as second in the UK for litigation turnover and the figures showing it as one of the top three busiest law firms in the UK courts by The Lawyer. I would explain that despite the pandemic, Irwin Mitchell is making pioneering efforts to innovate and has successfully managed to speed up and implement a digitalisation plan, reassuring the potential client that the firm can offer the best support despite current restrictions. I would say that this demonstrates the ability of the firm to handle all legal disputes with expert care.

[Feedback: Here, the candidate has improved on their first paragraph with regards to detail. The main strength of this paragraph is the evidence included in addition to the citing of such evidence’s sources. You should always try to include information from a variety of sources in your answers and ensure that you cite their respective sources. This lends credence to your claims and demonstrates your commitment to the firm in virtue of the depth of your research.

Additionally, unlike the preceding paragraph, the candidate has included a decent final concluding sentence which nicely sums up the paragraph and links it back to the question at hand. Candidates often forget to ‘link’ back to the question; however, this can be very costly, as the ‘link’ is what ensures your answer is connected to the question (without it, your answer may be incredibly engaging but regarded as irrelevant).

However, this paragraph is lacking a clear structure and argument. Clearly, this paragraph is addressing IM’s dispute resolution proficiency. Nevertheless, the candidate needs to make this clear from the very first sentence of the paragraph. You should adhere to the PEE/AL structure – the ‘point’ sentence is your introduction to the rest of the paragraph and a clear signpost as to what you are discussing.

Furthermore, the candidate includes an additional point regarding digitisation. Whilst this may be a valid claim, it does not fit well in the wider paragraph. It is unclear how this digitisation plan relates to disputes work. You should stick to one clear theme throughout your paragraphs – if there is an intentional deviation from this theme, you must be clear as to why you are deviating and always make sure to bring it back to your paragraph’s central point.] 

Explaining that the feedback of clients is continually of great importance to the firm, I would say that the potential client would be in a position to comment on how the firm could support their particular needs. I would promote the wide range of events and the podcast that the firm offers, and explain that they provide an opportunity to ask for legal advice from the experts at the firm. I would end by asking if the potential client had any questions and by providing my contact details and those of the firm for any further enquiries.

[Feedback: This paragraph has a nice end to the answer – the candidate plays into the fictional scenario at hand, which is a nice thing to include as a bit of flair.

The central problem with this answer is that it is too vague. Client feedback is of great importance to all law firms and many law firms have events and podcasts. For example, Herbert Smith Freehills has a variety of events and their own podcast – so what makes IM so different?

Before you answer ‘why firm?’ questions, it is worth sitting down and drafting a list of all the firm’s unique selling points. You must ensure that these points are as particular to the firm as possible and that you have evidence to justify your claim. For example, you insist on including a mention of IM’s podcast, you need to (1) mention it by name, (2) give an example of what was discussed on one of their episodes, and (3) explain how IM’s podcast is different to other law firms’ podcasts.

These kinds of questions demand answers with a greater degree of specificity and research. If you can find three USPs regarding the firm, you would be far better off discussing those in depth rather than writing about six generic points – depth is always more preferable than breadth.]

How do you think King & Spalding sets itself apart from other law firms? What attracts you to the firm? 

K&S sets itself apart from other law firms in London by its leading arbitration practice and sectoral strengths in oil & gas and construction. Having noted the findings in the Queen Mary University of London and Pinsent Masons LLP’s joint report “Future of International Energy Arbitration”that 73% of respondents selected Europe as a region most likely to see an acceleration of energy-related disputes, K&S’s unique mixture of strengths solidifies its market leader status, particularly as it is able to draw upon expertise across its global offices in key disputes jurisdictions in Dubai and Singapore. I am drawn to this aspect because it strongly aligns with my academic and professional interests. I would be very keen to work on sector-specific commercial and ICSID matters under the guidance of leading practitioners such as Tom Sprange K.C in the London office.  

Feedback: This paragraph has a number of strengths. First, the candidate structures their paragraph sensibly using the PEEL/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link). The candidate leads in with a concise point that addresses the question directly. By picking out K&S’ sector strengths as points of interest straight away, the candidate gives themselves a good logical base on which they can develop their argument. Then, the candidate elaborates on their point with specific detail and research. This helps tailor the candidate’s writing towards King & Spalding specifically. Then, the candidate touches upon their personal interest in arbitration/energy before concluding with a neat link back to the question. This results in a coherent, well-structured paragraph that is easy for the recruiter to follow (and so be persuaded by).

The candidate also demonstrates a very high level of research. You should note the level of specificity that the candidate gets into. They go beyond simply describing basic facts about the firm (such as its office count or Chambers rankings). Instead, the candidate identifies a specific report from their wider researching. They analyse it in detail before drawing a clear connection back to King & Spalding’s jurisdictional strengths/international presence. In turn, this results in a unique and well-argued paragraph that is grounded in specific research. In your own writing, you should aim for similar levels of specificity. You should tailor your points with as much specific research as possible, so that you demonstrate that you have considered the firm carefully before applying.

That said, the candidate does not sufficiently explain their personal interest in King & Spalding’s practice strengths. The candidate simply asserts both (1) that these points “strongly align with my academic and professional interests” and (2) that they would be “very keen” to work on these sector-specific matters. The candidate never explains why their interests align with King & Spalding, nor do they offer any personal evidence demonstrating their own interest in these points. In your writing, you must go beyond simply asserting that you have an interest in the firm. You must support your interest with personal evidence, before analysing how that evidence demonstrates your interest in the firm’s key selling points. This will convince the recruiter that you have a sustained, personal interest in the firm you are applying to.

The prospect of training at K&S attracts me because of the firm’s entrepreneurism. I first picked this up through a conversation with Rosie Watterson which she explained drew her to the firm’s fast-growing Corporate, Finance & Investment department – an area of law in which I am also keen to explore. The close-knit trainee intake and lean team structures at K&S additionally match my natural preference to take initiative and learn on my feet.

Feedback: The candidate does well to tailor their point by using a personal experience with the firm. By mentioning a conversation they had with a named member of King & Spalding, the candidate demonstrates a sustained personal interest in King & Spalding that is backed up by personal experience. We strongly advise that you attend networking events or open days with your chosen firms, if you possibly can. They can go a long way in demonstrating your authentic, genuine commitment to a career with the firm.

However, this is a weak paragraph overall. It needs to improve in a few regards: 

1. The candidate’s writing is unfocused because it crams in several points. The candidate begins by asserting an interest in the firm’s “entrepreneurism”, without elaborating on what they mean by this. Then, the candidate shoehorns in a point about the firm’s “Corporate, Finance & Investment” departments. They never explain what they mean by “fast-growing”, nor do they explain (1) what makes King & Spalding’s work in these fields unique or (2) why the candidate is personally interested in them. Finally, the candidate throws in a point about King & Spalding’s “trainee intake” without substantiating this further. This results in an unfocused and incoherent paragraph which lacks detail in various places.

2. The candidate’s writing is not well-tailored to King & Spalding. First, the candidate asserts that King & Spalding has a “fast-growing Corporate, Finance & Investment” department. Nearly every City law firm will have either established or fast-growing strengths in transactional areas. As such, this writing is not specific enough to King & Spalding. Similarly, many firms also offer “close-knit” trainee intakes and lean deal team structures. These are not unique to King & Spalding. As such, the candidate needed to get into much greater detail about why these points make King & Spalding unique.

3. The candidate does not provide personal evidence/experience supporting their interest in these points, nor does the candidate fully explain why these points appeal to them. The candidate asserts that they have a “natural preference to take initiative”. However, the candidate never explains (1) what they mean by this, (2) how their personal experiences prove this assertion nor (3) how this point ties in with their earlier interest in the firm’s Corporate team. In your own writing, you must substantiate your interest with specific personal examples.

As a rule, you should focus on one point per paragraph before analysing each one in depth. Had the candidate done this, then they could have avoided many of the issues presented above.

Why would you choose to train at Latham & Watkins over another firm? (250 words)

I am interested in Latham & Watkins for its market leading finance and private equity expertise. Having completed an insight programme at J.P Morgan and studied a finance module, I have developed a genuine interest in the firm's core practice areas.

The firm also stands out among its competitors for its strong growth in areas such as in technology transactions and media and entertainment. Reading about the firm's exciting work in these areas, such as advising Netflix on its first acquisition and advising clients on an initial coin offering, I am confident that training at the firm will provide me with the opportunity to work on cutting-edge transactions across a broad range of practice areas.

Additionally, the vast scale of the firm's transactions ensures global exposure. This is exemplified in the firm's role in Carlyle Group's acquisition of energy company CEPSA where several Latham & Watkins offices across the US, Spain and London were neatly combined to facilitate a seamless service. The international yet collegial nature of the firm provides a unique formula that creates opportunities to work on the latest developments across jurisdictions.

At the [redacted] presentation, partner Deborah Kirk highlighted that the small trainee intake and leaner team structure at the firm allows trainees to take greater ownership of their work. As someone that actively seek opportunities to get involved in new challenges, training at the firm appeals to me for the emphasis it places on trainee responsibility and career growth through drive and initiative.

[Feedback: This is an excellent answer which is the strongest part of the application.

The candidate sets out four reasons why they want to work at Latham & Watkins.  This works reasonably well in this context, but it’s generally better to provide a more developed answer rather than a series of accomplishments.  We recommend three developed reasons for this length of answer.

The first point is on the short side and would benefit from further development.  Nonetheless, non-legal work experience such as an insight programme at an investment bank is useful in demonstrating that you have actively considered careers other than law.  In this case, it is also useful for supporting the candidate’s professed interest in finance.

It’s easy to stand out by doing a lot of research about your target firm.  This is something that this candidate has done well.  First, the candidate weaves in details of notable transactions that the firm was involved in and explains what this example demonstrates for them.  Next, the candidate drills down into a prominent transaction which demonstrates the international, full-service nature of the Latham & Watkins’ offering.  Finally, the candidate refers back to a specific example of where he or she has interacted with the firm.  Naming a partner, associate or trainee that you have interacted with at the firm evidences that your application is the product of research; it’s not a quick, spur-of-the-moment decision.]

Why would you choose to train at Latham & Watkins over another firm? (250 words)

I would like to train at Latham & Watkins (L&W) given its global presence and strong expertise in M&A, equity capital markets, restructuring and insolvency, dispute resolution, and international arbitration. Its one-firm structure enables a fully integrated client service and opportunities for trainees to work on cross-border matters. I am excited by the prospect of working on high-profile matters such as Saudi Aramco's Initial Public Offering and international arbitration for states including Croatia and Ukraine. Exposure to L&W's well-balanced expertise in corporate, advisory and litigation areas would shape me into a more well-rounded lawyer and business adviser to clients.

[Feedback:  When answering a ‘why this firm?’ question, we recommend separating your answer into three sections. These sections address why the firm’s work, training, and culture appeal to you. You should note that this is the structure adopted by this candidate.

Importantly, work should take priority over training, which, in turn, should take priority over culture. If the word count is restrictive, we would recommend sacrificing the culture point in favour of fleshing out your work and training sections.

Here, the candidate does well to include a flurry of information about the firm. This is a component of a good answer: the recruiter wants to see not only your own motivations for joining the firm but evidence that you have properly researched the firm and its work. You should note that the candidate demonstrates knowledge of the firm’s:

1. Core practice areas and specialisms.

2. Business model.

3. Deals.

The candidate also tries not only to recite information about the firm but also to provide an argument as to why the firm’s business model and work are attractive to them. You must remember to give an argument in your answers as this is a question concerning your motivation. The best structure for an argument in response to these kinds of questions is:

1. You must make a claim about why the firm’s work (or training or culture) appeals to you.

2. You should then provide evidence for your claim by citing the research you have conducted concerning the firm (as alluded to above).

3. Afterwards, you need to explain how your evidence proves your claim.

4. Finally, you have to link your response back to the question at hand and explicitly state how your discussion demonstrates your motivation for the firm. This will typically involve some reflection about yourself (substantiated with evidence where necessary) and how that reflects your suitability or alignment with what you have claimed about the firm.

You should notice that whilst the candidate has attempted to make an argument in this section, it does not follow this structure and, therefore, is not as optimal as it could be. Hence, to improve this answer, the candidate should have tightened their argumentation and been more explicit in their steps. The central point of improvement relates to the last point of the structure detailed above: the candidate needed to have argued that they would thrive with respect to the firm’s business model and work and provided personal evidence to substantiate such a claim.

As it stands, the section details some facts about the firm and has the candidate claim that they find these facts attractive. Although the candidate does try to give some justification in their last sentence, the candidate needed to have gone on to say why being an all-rounded lawyer and business adviser is important to them. This would have answered the question, as the candidate would then be able to claim, for instance, that Latham is the best firm to become such an all-rounded lawyer and, therefore, where they would like to pursue their career above anywhere else. However, the answer lacks persuasiveness without an explanation of the personal motivation of why the candidate needs to be well-rounded.

You must always remember to make your answers personal. You should avoid writing what you think the firm wants to hear (and giving a “firm-side” explanation). Instead, you should provide your own personal motivations (such as the desire for a life-long learning opportunity or the wish to be an expert in your chosen profession).] 

L&W's small intake attracts me as it enables trainees to be integrated into the team from day one and take on greater responsibilities. Furthermore, L&W's supportive and inclusive culture attracts me. Having spoken to trainees including [trainee 1], [trainee 2] and [trainee 3] at law fairs, I learnt that L&W's friendly culture and open-door policy allow trainees to easily approach their supervisors and other lawyers. Being part of a tight-knit firm would provide great opportunities for growth and career progression.

[Feedback:  In this section, the candidate splits their discussion between the topics of the firm’s small trainee intake and Latham’s ‘friendly culture’. The candidate has done well to cite conversations they had with some of the firm’s trainees. When you write your answers, you should look to name individuals from the firm with whom you spoke to. This is a great way to demonstrate that you went out of your way to research the firm and garner evidence from those who have experienced the firm’s work, training or culture first-hand.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have focused their discussion on one claim and related their response back to themselves. The candidate starts by mentioning the firm’s smaller trainee intake and the greater responsibility that this entails. However, the candidate does not elaborate on this point any further. You must ensure that each point you make is substantiated with evidence, explanation, and a link. As it stands, there is no way for the recruiter to know why the candidate wants greater responsibility and is suited for increased levels of responsibility. This could result in the recruiter finding the candidate’s answer unpersuasive.

Additionally, whilst the candidate does go into more detail about the firm’s ‘supportive and inclusive culture’, this point is problematic for two reasons: it is vague and can apply to virtually any firm, and it is not linked to the candidate personally.

First, most firms will claim to have such a culture; hence, if you make this point, you need to have concrete evidence to substantiate the claim and present an argument as to how the firm is different to others in this regard.

Second, the candidate does not explain why such a culture is attractive to them personally. The candidate briefly states that ‘[b]eing part of a tight-knit firm would provide great opportunities for growth and career progression’, yet they do not explain why ‘growth’ and ‘career progression’ are things they want, nor do they explain how a tight-knit firm provides such opportunities for them.

Hence, when reading the candidate’s answer, you should note that you should:

1. Hone in on non-generic points. A better subject for the candidate to have focused on in this paragraph would have been the firm’s training contract, including, amongst other things, the firm’s mandatory seats, qualification opportunities, secondment opportunities, and trainee intake size.

2. Link the discussion back to you. The recruiter wants to read about why the firm’s features (that you select) appeal to you personally. Do not just claim that they appeal to you; provide specific evidence.

Once again, if you follow a strict PEEL structure, you will ensure you hit the above points and answer the question fully and succinctly.]

As an ethnic-minority woman, L&W's strong commitment to diversity stands out to me. I am impressed by the inclusive management approach at L&W which allows the associates to make decisions on progression and promotions to partnership through the Associates Committee. Having spoken to [Latham associate] during a law fair about the Women Enriching Business Committee Group, I am confident that L&W's Diversity and Inclusion initiatives match my aspiration for career progression.

[Feedback: The candidate does especially well here to include specific evidence to substantiate their claim about the firm’s culture. Culture is a notoriously difficult topic to discuss. Many candidates make the mistake of discussing the firm’s culture in broad sweeping terms without providing any solid evidence. This section highlights the main ways in which you can evidence culture in your answers:

1. You can reference the names of people (and the discussions you had with them) that you spoke to at the firm.

2. You can cite the firm’s initiatives, groups, and programs.

You should further note that the candidate attempts to align themselves with the firm’s culture. Candidates sometimes make a claim about the firm’s culture but fail to explain why that culture appeals to them (beyond the obvious). In this case, the candidate makes it clear that the firm’s diverse and inclusive culture is attractive to them because, as ‘an ethnic-minority woman’ such a culture will further enable the candidate’s ambition concerning career progression.

The only point of improvement concerns the last sentence. The candidate writes that they have an ‘aspiration for career progression’. To elevate the answer’s quality, the candidate could have added a sentence explaining either how they personally would use the initiatives to advance their career or why career progression matters to them. If the candidate added these points, the answer would be a bit more personal and persuasive.]

Your Fit: Why are you and Lewis Silkin right for each other?

Lewis Silkin is suited to me for various reasons. The firm's small trainee intake will provide for extensive high- level training and significant responsibility from the outset. Ultimately, I will be known as an individual, enabling me to make a valuable contribution to the firm's work, aligning with my aspirations for my training contract and beyond.

Feedback: The candidate clearly identifies an aspect that is relevant in terms of ascertaining one’s suitability to a particular law firm, namely the small size of Lewis Silkin’s trainee intake. Moreover, they pinpoint the perks of joining a small trainee intake, before explaining why it appeals to them. To take their answer to the next level, the candidate could have mentioned what their aspirations “for [their] training contract and beyond” are. For emphasis, they could have also explicitly stated that the prospect of making a valuable contribution to the firm’s work or being known as an individual at the firm would motivate or energise them. To tailor their answer to Lewis Silkin, the candidate could have referenced the particularities of the training contract offered by the firm and/or the particularities of the work undertaken by the firm.

Furthermore Lewis Silkin’s distinctive working culture particularly attracts me, as the firm does not promote a rigid monoculture and encourages individuals to develop their own unique working style, bringing their individuality to the workplace.

Feedback: Although this application was ultimately successful, we do not recommend following the candidate’s example in this particular instance. We recommend that you avoid discussing a firm’s culture in your answer unless you have interacted with a firm representative (e.g., a trainee solicitor, a member of the graduate recruitment team, etc.) who has given you a first-hand account thereof or unless you have worked at the firm for a considerable period of time such that you have had a first-hand experience thereof (e.g., as a paralegal, as a legal assistant, etc.). Otherwise, the recruiter could perceive your answer as far-fetched and/or disingenuous. Here, the candidate does not substantiate their claims regarding Lewis Silkin’s culture at all, though they are presumably based upon the firm’s recruitment materials and/or website.

Having worked at [department store] and in Reed Smith’s Finance group, I am attracted by Lewis Silkin’s top tier capabilities in the Financial Services and Retail, Hospitality & Leisure sectors. Moreover, engaging with the Working Families and AIRE centre initiatives during my placement year, I have developed an interest in Employment and Immigration & Global Mobility advisory work.

Feedback:The candidate clearly identifies another aspect that is relevant in terms of ascertaining one’s suitability to a particular law firm, namely Lewis Silkin’s various areas of expertise. They express their particular interest therein and aptly justify it through their relevant work experience, though they do not elaborate any further. To take their answer to the next level, the candidate could have developed their train of thought in more detail to allow the recruiter to fully grasp their motivation for applying to Lewis Silkin. To showcase their research into Lewis Silkin, the candidate could have also referenced the fact that it is “structured around two key divisions”, namely Creators, Makers & Innovators (CMI) and Employment, Immigration & Reward (EIR), given that the foregoing is one of the firm’s unique selling points within the legal market.

Whilst working as a retail assistant, I developed strong client-facing abilities, through providing consistent high-quality customer service and regularly handling complicated situations, requiring me to provide effective solutions whilst ensuring losses to the business were minimal. This will undoubtedly be of use at Lewis Silkin, helping to build and sustain dynamic client relationships.

Feedback: The candidate does well to argue that they are suited to the firm in light of their own skillset because it lends a pragmatic dimension to their application and boosts its strength. To tailor their answer to Lewis Silkin in particular, the candidate could have argued that they possess the skills referenced within the firm’s website and recruitment materials, including “strong communication skills” and the ability to be “a team player who works for the benefit of all”. Although “client-facing abilities” are relevant to the role of a trainee solicitor, we recommend that you focus on either the skills referenced within the firm’s website and recruitment materials or the skills that are necessary for that role of a trainee solicitor, including communication, teamwork, time management, adaptability, and problem-solving.

On a slightly different note, we advise against discussing the same work experience, extra-curricular activity and/or position of responsibility in response to two or more prompts within your application unless you are discussing markedly different aspects thereof. Here, the candidate discusses the same aspect of their work experience at Reed Smith in response to this prompt and the first prompt within their application. A recruiter could perceive the foregoing as a sign of idleness or insufficient motivation for applying to the firm.

Please explain why you are applying to Macfarlanes. (300 words)

My first interaction with Macfarlanes was at Bright Networks Top 100 First Year Lawyers event and then at Bright Networks Festival 2019. Here, [redacted trainee], a trainee, proudly spoke of Macfarlanes’ collaborative culture and development of internal talent; the majority of partners trained at the firm. Macfarlanes’ genuine focus on the development and progression of its trainees is personally attractive. Furthermore, Macfarlanes recent strides in diversity and inclusion are commendable. I met [redacted trainee] on-campus and it was encouraging to hear her praise Macfarlanes’ commitment to D&I through progressive inclusion networks (such as Balance or REACH) and the innovative Reignite Academy. I am delighted that Macfarlanes shares my enthusiasm for leveling the playing field as [redacted trainee] later presented me with the University of [redacted] Law Society Diversity Award for my dedication to actively contributing to diversity events throughout the year. Moreover, my fellow Law Society committee executive member and future trainee at Macfarlanes, [redacted future trainee], boasted of Macfarlanes strong private client practice and lucrative corporate practice, advising on the most complex transactions. This inspired me to research further. Macfarlanes work on Visa Inc’s purchase of Visa Europe captured my interest as I have recently completed an enlightening virtual FinTech course with HKU. After completing this course, I have a greater appreciation of technology's utilisation in respect to efficiency, innovation and client pitches. Therefore, working for a firm at the cutting-edge of technology use and innovation, as demonstrated by Velocity, iDeal, and use of Kira Systems, is an exciting prospect. Finally, Macfarlanes’ commitment to CSR is compelling, especially the volunteer work at St Hilda's East Legal Advice Clinic. This pro bono work resonates with me after interning at a community interest housing association, Pathway Housing Solutions, in [redacted city] and gaining an insight into the hardship associated with housing related disputes.

[Feedback: There is a lot to like about this answer.  This candidate has clearly done his or her research.  The answer is personalised and conveys a genuine interest in the firm.  The candidate has taken the time to read about the firm and its work in the usual sources (Chambers Student, Lex100, Legal Business), but has then built on that by speaking to representatives and future trainees about their perspective on the firm.

There are two primary improvement points for this answer: (1) greater development of a reduced number of points and (2) structuring and readability.

●      The candidate includes four distinct reasons about why they are applying to Macfarlanes.  This is a lot for a 300 word answer.  We suggest sticking to a maximum of three points and taking the time to develop each point in greater depth.  We think that the strongest points are (1) diversity, (2) quality of training and (3) calibre of work.  Like most City firms, Macfarlanes has an active CSR practice but the firm’s work in this area is not a unique selling point in our eyes because you could point to similar examples for most comparable firms.  

●      To improve readability, the candidate should split their answer into separate paragraphs for each new point.  This small change does not impact word count but makes your answer much more digestible. 

The candidate should also finesse the structure of their answer.  We like the Point, Evidence, Explanation framework for short responses like this.  For example:

●      Point: Macfarlanes stands out because of the high-quality and varied work carried out by the firm.    

●      Evidence:  For example, the firm is unique in having both a leading mid-market M&A practice and the City’s preeminent private client team, both of which are ranked Band 1 by Legal 500.

●      Explanation: I am drawn by the opportunity to work on such a distinct mix of high quality work during my training contract.  I want to experience both the fast-paced work of Macfarlanes’ corporate department (such the firm’s recent work on Visa Inc’s purchase of Visa Europe) and the intellectual challenge inherent in the complex structuring work that your private client team carries out for various high-net worth clients.]

Based on what you know about Memery Crystal; please give 3 reasons why you have chosen us and 3 reasons why we should choose you?

Clear sector focus

I am drawn to Memery Crystal’s commercial practice because I have a profound interest in businesses and the markets they operate in. I was excited to learn of Memery Crystal’s AIM focus because of the opportunity to learn about clients in different industries and jurisdictions.

I listened to Nick Alfillé discuss at the Open Day on the 19th November how the firm assists the client throughout their life-cycle and read with interest about Pelatro’s first acquisition following its admission to AIM in 2017 as evidence of this. I would add value to Memery Crystal because I would have a genuine interest in the firm’s clients.

[Feedback: The candidate has split their answer into three clear sections which helps them maintain a logical structure and prevents them from missing any crucial information out.

This section picks out a unique aspect of the firm, namely the firm’s focus on AIM. Some excellent evidence is provided by the candidate, notably mentioning by name the individual the candidate listened to on an open day and discussing a specific deal.

However, the candidate’s answer could do with improvement when it comes to depth. Most of this section is quite generic and does not go into the details of the firm’s sector focus nor the candidate’s interest in the mentioned sector. Given the limited word count, the candidate should have gone straight into the details of the firm’s sector focus, and then drawn out specifically why they are attracted to it. Remember, you must substantiate your claims by providing specific, personal evidence – it is not enough to just assert that you have a ‘genuine interest in the firm’s clients’, you must evidence that interest.]

Trainee experience

The Open Day reinforced my understanding of Memery Crystal as a firm where the trainee is afforded responsibility from the outset. In particular I am drawn to the one-to-one trainee experience and friendly and supportive approach.

I would add value to Memery Crystal because as a funds paralegal at [redacted law firm] I have been afforded responsibility by way of working as the sole paralegal on co-investments and drafting facility agreements. I have experience working as a team and individually to meet client expectations and contribute meaningfully to the firm.

[Feedback: This is a stronger section – the candidate’s use of their previous work experience does well to evidence their claim of enjoying high levels of responsibility. However, much like the previous section, the candidate would have been better off spending a little more time unpacking what exactly is unique about Memery Crystal’s one-to-one trainee experience. For example, the candidate’s answer would have benefited from the addition of some specific examples or testimonies that evidenced the existence or effectiveness of such an experience.

Furthermore, though the discussion of the candidate’s work as a paralegal is fitting, the candidate could have been a little more specific when describing the kinds of work they completed. Again, you should be as specific as possible because facts and statistics add credence to your answer and better show off your abilities.

Finally, the last sentence of this section is a little ill-fitting with the paragraph it is in. The candidate has used this section to discuss how they work well alone with high levels of responsibility. Naturally, teamwork is essential to working in a law firm, and the candidate felt as though they needed to mention their ability to work in a team. However, the candidate has “tagged” this teamwork-sentence on and it does not serve the answer well. If needed, you should link your sentences together with introductory words – this will help you properly demonstrate your logical thought process to the reader. For example, the candidate could have written: ‘In addition to working well in one-on-one settings, I also have extensive experience working in teams. [insert evidence here]’.]

Innovation

Memery Crystal is an innovative firm as evidenced by its status as market leaders in medical cannabis and appointment as the exclusive legal partner to the Centre for Medical Cannabis. I am drawn to Memery Crystal because it stays ahead of the curve and is willing to embrace new industries.

I would add value to Memery Crystal because I recognise that innovation is important from a firm perspective and individually. For example, I regularly read around innovation strategies and have taken a keen interest in data sets and how they can assist law firms in the future.

[Feedback: In light of the demanding question and the restrictive word limit this is a good section. The candidate has used specific evidence to substantiate their claim that the firm is innovative and has linked that claim back to themselves and why they would fit the firm on those grounds.

The only point of improvement would be regarding the last paragraph: though the candidate gives some evidence for why innovation is important to them, it would have been better if the candidate provided some more personal and specific examples rather than generically stating ‘read around innovation strategies’. This is not a bad example, however, to write this, the candidate would have needed to specify what strategies they read about and why they are interested in those specific strategies. Indeed, the same comment goes for the statement ‘how they can assist law firms in the future’ – instead of stating that, the candidate could have actually specified how such strategies and data sets can help law firms.]

Beyond looking for a challenging career, why do you want to be a lawyer? Why do you want to be a lawyer at Mishcon de Reya? (300 words max) *

My interest in a career in law has developed through attending relevant workshops. The most memorable was a negotiation ran by BCLP in November 2017. Acting as the owner and seller of a failing hotel franchise I relished the challenge of applying my problem-solving skills within a commercial law context. My vacation scheme with [UK national / multi-site commercial law firm] in 2019, cemented my interest in becoming a lawyer. From summarising the facts to calculating a likely quantum, I liked working on a case report on the liability of an insurer against an accident at work claim.

[Feedback:  Although this paragraph showcases the candidate’s previous engagement with commercial law firms, it does not ultimately elucidate why the candidate wants to be a lawyer. The phrase “relevant workshops” is extremely vague, which means that it adds little to no value to the overall answer. Given the subsequent lack of elaboration, it is difficult to follow the candidate’s train of thought. It is unclear how “[a]cting as the owner and seller of a hotel franchise” in a negotiation workshop motivated them to become a lawyer, as opposed to an entrepreneur or a consultant. Arguably, all of the aforementioned professions involve problem-solving. The candidate leaves the reader to figure out how the law fits into the narrative. Remember that your mission is to convince the reader that you are interested in law, commerce, and – crucially – the intersection between the two. If you only discuss one of the two, you might give the reader the impression that you have not given the question sufficient thought, that you do not know what the career involves and/or that you might be more suited to a different path (e.g., an insurance lawyer or a business consultant).

We would have liked to see a more in-depth discussion of the candidate’s previous vacation scheme because the fact that they have relevant legal work experience already sets them apart from numerous other candidates. Unfortunately, they do not quite manage to use said work experience to their advantage. They merely state that the scheme cemented their interest in becoming a lawyer without explaining how that happened. Enjoying a particular piece of work does not serve to show one’s motivation for choosing a career path. You might enjoy working on case reports, but you might dread researching a niche area of the law or trailing through documents in a due diligence exercise. This is exactly why you need to step back and take a look at the “bigger picture” of a career in commercial law. What general characteristics of the career most appeal to you? What specific examples can you provide in support of your answer?

On a different note, the question specifically directs candidates away from the overly used point regarding the challenging nature of a career in commercial law (“Beyond looking for a challenging career…”). The candidate misses this cue (“I relished the challenge…). Remember to read the questions/ prompts in an application form carefully and to tailor your answer to the specific demands thereof. Think twice before copying and pasting generic answers from one application form to another.

Note: incorrectly used comma at “[m]y vacation scheme […], cemented”.

I initially became interested in Mishcon for its consistent Legal 500 ranking in Competition Litigation. During my LLM, I enjoyed applying my analytical skills when completing a 10,000-word practice project on a merger between two Internet of Things companies. I acted as legal counsel writing a memorandum to the Director-General for Competition. The project furthered my interest in not only Competition, but also Corporate and M&A. Completing a vacation scheme at Mishcon, a firm that consistently ranks well in these areas, will allow me to gain practical experience in these areas.

[Feedback:  Although the candidate does well to share a personal insight to justify their interest in a particular practice area, they do not paint a sufficiently clear picture of said insight to the reader. It is unclear whether the candidate was acting as legal counsel for one of the companies or for a competition authority. It is also unclear what the purpose of their memorandum was and who the “Director-General for Competition” was. Crucially, the candidate fails to explain how the project cultivated to their interest in competition law (or “Corporate and M&A” for that matter). The reader is left to make too many assumptions. At the same time, the underlying point regarding the firm is generic and, therefore, weak. Most commercial law firms, including Mishcon and its competitors, are ranked well by the Legal 500 in a myriad of areas. 

On a separate note, M&A is a sub-category of Corporate, which means that the phrase “Corporate and M&A” is redundant. Be mindful of the terms you use to describe particular types of work undertaken by law firms. Before sending off an application, consult the firms’ websites, as well as resources like Chambers Student to ensure that you are using the right terms.

Note: repetition of “these areas” in the last sentence.

Mishcon’s drive for quality permeates down to its training and development. Specifically, the Academy, of which I gained a deeper understanding from Patrick Connolly at the November 2020 Open Day. The courses and talks offered through the four strands of the Learning Centre ensure that trainees are receiving sustained support to become competent future-facing legal advisors. After attending several training sessions with support workers, as a receptionist at Shelter, I was selected to become an advisor. I enjoyed the responsibility of seeing clients and supporting them on their enquiries. So, the emphasis Mishcon puts into the development of its lawyers resonates with my own desire to continue this exposure to building and maintaining long-lasting relationships.

[Feedback: This paragraph is effective because the candidate identifies one of the firm’s unique selling points (USPs), draws on a personal insight to justify their interest therein, and manages to weave in their attendance at an open day hosted by the firm. We would have included a brief explanation regarding Shelter (e.g., “Shelter, a housing and homelessness charity…”) and the advisor role (“I was selected to become an advisor; the role involved X, Y and Z.”) to avoid any confusion on the part of the reader. Granted, the candidate may have included this information in a different part of the application form, but it is generally good practice to refresh the reader’s memory when answering the main questions/ prompts on the form.

Note: the second sentence does not make grammatical sense.

How is Osborne Clarke different from the other firms to which you have applied? (250 words max)*

Osborne Clarke stands out through its encouragement of rapid growth into relatively untapped markets, as evidenced by the recent opening of a new office in Delhi through your Indian relationship firm BTG Legal. This demonstrates the firm's future-focused attitude and ability to spot opportunities to expand in an increasingly competitive market. The sector-based approach of the firm enables in-depth understanding of the clients business irrespective of the country in which they are based.

Feedback:  The candidate correctly states that Osborne Clarke pursues a forward-looking strategy as well as a sector-based approach and explains their bearing on client service, which suggests that they possess a reasonable understanding of the business of law firms.

To ensure that their answer is as relevant as possible relative to the prompt, the candidate could have placed a distinct emphasis on how and/or why these aspects differentiate Osborne Clarke from other firms to which they have applied.

On a slightly different note, we would advise against referring to the firm by using second-person pronouns (e.g., “your Indian relationship firm”). We would recommend referring to the firm by using its name and/or third-person pronouns (e.g., “Osborne Clarke / its Indian relationship firm”).

Furthermore, Osborne Clarke has embraced new technologies and is at the forefront of innovation. This is shown by the launch of the platform Osborne Clarke Ventures which provides services for tech start-ups to help tackle the legal and financial challenges they face as they expand, in particular their Series A round. This platform provides regular meetings for clients using the service to keep them up to date with any developments. Additionally, the firm has won numerous awards including two JUVE Law Firm of the Year Awards in 2019 for Technology and Media and IT and Data Protection, further evidencing the firm's innovative approach to legal issues.

Feedback: The candidate correctly identifies one of Osborne Clarke’s unique selling points (USPs), i.e., Osborne Clarke Ventures. To showcase their research into the firm, the candidate explains how Osborne Clarke Ventures works and cites examples of accolades received by the firm in connection to the platform. Echoing the comment made in relation to the previous paragraph, the candidate could have emphasised the uniqueness of Osborne Clarke Ventures within the legal market by e.g., discussing the competitive advantages of the fee structure it employs (“And unlike other programmes out there, there aren’t any monthly costs involved – just clear and transparent preferential legal fees, as and when you ask us to advise you” [emphasis added]).

Osborne Clarke's culture is a major differentiator from other firms. You promote a dynamic and vibrant culture with a focus on creativity. I am inspired by the idea of doing things differently so believe I would fit in extremely well with this culture. With a 95% retention rate of newly qualified solicitors in 2019, Osborne Clarke is clearly a firm that challenges yet supports its trainees which greatly appeals to me.

Feedback: Although this application was ultimately successful, we would advise against discussing the firm’s culture as the candidate does in this case. You cannot know whether a given firm’s culture “is a major differentiator from other firms” or whether you would “fit in extremely well with [a given firm’s] culture” unless you happen to have spent a meaningful amount of time working at that firm.

We would recommend that you focus on discussing aspects related to the work undertaken by the firm, the training offered by the firm, or any other USP that you can plausibly identify by consulting the website and/or recruitment materials of the firm, or other reliable sources (e.g., the Chambers Student Guide, firm representatives, etc.). For instance, the candidate could have discussed the significance of the firm’s unique three-dimensional focus on Digitalisation, Decarbonisation and Urban Dynamics.

Please outline the reasons why you wish to pursue a career in commercial law at Osborne Clarke. Within your answer you should also include details of how you have developed your interest in the profession through your non-academic experiences. (300 words)

During my vacation scheme at [redacted mid-Atlantic law firm], I developed my interest in understanding how global markets function across various industries, and how client's goods and services fit into the wider market. This wide spectrum of work is intellectually stimulating and deepened my appreciation for problem-solving and thinking innovatively, thus drawing me to the profession.

Feedback: The aim of this first paragraph is good as it addresses the first key aspect of the question: why commercial law. In a multi-faceted question like this with a tight word count, we recommend providing no more than 1-2 detailed reasons why you have chosen commercial law in general. This leaves you plenty of space to discuss your specific interest in Osborne Clarke.

However, the candidate’s reasoning for commercial law is not convincing enough. The candidate simply asserts that they are interested in how global markets function and how clients’ goods/services fit into this. This reason is not specific to commercial law. Indeed, it could be applied to any profession within business/consulting. As a rule, if you can replace “commercial law” with any other business/finance/consulting career path, then your reasoning is not specific enough to commercial law. To paraphrase the candidate’s application as an example:

●        “I am interested in commercial law because I can see how global markets function across various industries”.

 This could easily be replaced with:

●        “I am interested in investment banking because I can see how global markets function across various industries”.

 As such, the candidate’s reasoning is not specific enough. It could easily be copied + pasted into an application to a Big Four accounting firm, a hedge fund and so on.

We would also add that you need to develop every personal example and link it back to your motivations for the firm. Here, the candidate asserts that they attended a vacation scheme but we are not told what they did or how it developed their interest in commercial law. To avoid this issue, we recommend using the PEEL/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link) in all motivational questions. You should start by concisely stating your motivational point. Then, you should offer specific and detailed examples where you developed this interest. Next, you should explain/analyse the example in detail. Finally, you should link your explanations/evidence back to the overarching point.

Also, the candidate slips up by spelling clients’ as “client’s”. You should stamp out minor punctuation mistakes like this so as to reduce the risk that recruiters automatically reject you.

I am attracted to the firm’s strength in its multidisciplinary approach and expertise in a variety of sectors, which I would like to gain exposure to. This is evidenced by the firm’s Tier 1 dispute resolution and venture capital practices. I find this appealing as I want to experience a range of practice areas to make a well-informed decision upon qualification. Moreover, having a venture capital-specific practice is rather niche and rare to find in other firms. This is an area that I have always wanted to gain exposure to as my experience in the Creative Cycle project fostered my entrepreneurial spirit and spurred my interest to help clients at various stages of their business lifecycle meet their strategic objective.

Feedback: The candidate does well to dive straight into their interest in Osborne Clarke. For “why firm?” questions, we recommend that you make 2-3 in-depth points (depending on word count) that deal with the following in descending priority order: work, training and culture. Points about the firm’s culture always take lowest priority and should be cut first if you are struggling with word counts. This is because you will not convince recruiters that you understand the firm’s day-to-day culture unless you have spent a meaningful amount of time working there (say, as a paralegal). 

You should note how the candidate adopts the PEEL structure reasonably well here. The candidate leads their paragraph by concisely stating a point, namely that they are attracted to the firm’s multidisciplinary strengths. Then, the candidate demonstrates a decent level of research by stating that the firm has Tier 1 strengths in dispute resolution and venture capital practices. You should note that you should always back up your points with specific and detailed evidence about the firm, using numbers and statistics wherever you can. This demonstrates a high level of research and wider interest in the firm to the recruiter. 

The first issue with this paragraph is that the candidate’s central point is not tailored to Osborne Clarke. While it is true that Osborne Clarke has multidisciplinary strengths, the same can be said for nearly every major law firm in the City. As a rule, your reason is not specific enough to the firm if you can swap out the firm’s name for any other in the city. For example, the candidate’s first sentence could easily swap out “the firm’s strength in its multidisciplinary approach” with “BCLP’s/Irwin Mitchell’s/Eversheds’ strengths in its multidisciplinary approach”. The firm’s Tier 1 strengths in disputes and venture capital also does not demonstrate a high enough level of research – there will be many firms with the same Tier 1 strengths. As such, the candidate should have identified a specific aspect of Osborne Clarke (for instance its venture capital strengths) and explained why Osborne Clarke’s work in this area appeals to them.

The candidate’s example also requires further development. The candidate asserts that the “Creative Cycle project” spurred their interest in commercial law but we are given no context about this project, nor any explanation as to why it spurred their interest in Osborne Clarke’s venture capital/disputes practice. It is not clear how this example relates back to the candidate’s point about Osborne Clarke’s multidisciplinary strengths. Though we sympathise with limited word counts, you should always provide some context to your examples and tie them back in with your initial point.

I am attracted to Osborne Clarke’s unparalleled innovation culture, as reflected by Osborne Clarke Ventures, Osborne Clarke Solutions, and the People Platform. By constantly developing innovative initiatives to keep up with novel trends in different markets, the firm shows that it is genuinely committed to adding value to its clients. Having enjoyed studying IT Law, I am keen to observe this intersection between law and technology at Osborne Clarke. 

Feedback: The candidate again does well to lead straight into their point, namely that they are attracted to Osborne Clarke’s innovation culture. The candidate also develops their point by naming key examples of Osborne Clarke’s initiatives. This demonstrates a decent level of research and also helps the candidate tailor their point.

However, this paragraph requires improvement in two ways. Firstly, the candidate does not demonstrate any understanding of what these initiatives involved or how they have helped Osborne Clarke “keep up with novel trends in different markets”/”add value to clients”. The candidate should have developed the point further by providing statistics, numbers and/or examples demonstrating how Osborne Clarke’s innovations have improved its profitability as a business. Secondly, the candidate does not explain how their IT Law studies ignited their interest in innovation or how that links back to their interest in the firm. Had the candidate made space (perhaps by cutting the below paragraph), then they could have developed their personal example further.

Osborne Clarke’s genuinely friendly and supportive culture appeals to me. My encounters with the firm’s trainees and associates, including Emily Flitterman, have been highly welcoming. They all spoke highly of the firm’s open-door policy. Having lived in Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK, I value being immersed in a diverse and inclusive setting like Osborne Clarke.

Feedback: This paragraph is the weakest and could have been cut altogether. As a rule, we advise that you avoid making points about the firm’s culture unless you have spent a prolonged period of time working at the firm. The bare minimum is that you should have attended an open day as this candidate has done.

The candidate does well to highlight both their attendance at the open day and to mention a specific detail they learned from it (namely the open-door policy). This demonstrates a good level of commitment to Osborne Clarke. That said, the paragraph suffers several flaws:

1. The candidate’s central point is not tailored sufficiently to Osborne Clarke. Most firms will market themselves at open days as “genuinely friendly and supportive” - no firm representative will ever tell you that the firm is a horrible place to work at.

2. The candidate makes a disparate point about Osborne Clarke being “diverse and inclusive”. However, it is not clear how the candidate learned this from the open day. The candidate also does not develop this point with any specific statistics or examples. Furthermore, the point suffers the same flaw as the previous in that it is not tailored – nearly all major law firms will market themselves as diverse and inclusive.

3. The candidate’s personal example is underdeveloped. It is not self-explanatory how the candidate’s time in Hong Kong/Singapore/UK made diversity and inclusion important to them.

Given the tight word count, this paragraph could have been cut altogether so that the candidate could develop the previous two paragraphs.

Please outline the reasons why you wish to pursue a career in commercial law at Osborne Clarke. 250. 244

I enjoy serving corporate clients. Assisting companies and PE firms with commercial due diligence for taught me the value of uncompromising client service, especially in the fast-paced environment of live transactions where clients require timely updates and advice on next steps. Commercial awareness was essential; I had to quickly grasp the fundamentals of new industries with each project. I am interested in the emphasis which Osborne Clarke places on deep sector expertise and strategic thinking in order to provide optimal legal advice.

Feedback: The candidate makes reasonably good use of personalised evidence in this paragraph. You should note how the candidate draws upon examples from their work experience in commercial due diligence. Then, the candidate drills down on (1) what they learned from this experience and (2) briefly how this developed their interest in the point (namely that they “enjoy serving corporate clients”. In your own writing, you should back up your points with specific evidence and personal examples. In turn, these will help you demonstrate that you have a concrete interest in Osborne Clarke backed up by strong, objective evidence.

However, this paragraph does not truly answer the question. First, the candidate leads in with a generic point. They assert that they are interested in “serving corporate clients”, but this is not a unique feature of Osborne Clarke – all commercial law firms serve corporate clients by definition! It is not even a unique feature of commercial law. You will serve corporate clients in a vast array of career paths, not just in commercial law. In turn, it is not clear how the candidate’s central point demonstrates their interest in Osborne Clarke. This is not a general “why commercial law?” question. It is a “Why Osborne Clarke?” question. As such, you need to make sure that each paragraph addresses your interest in Osborne Clarke. You should set out 2-3 PEEL/AL-structured paragraphs (point, evidence, explanation/analysis link), which each demonstrate your interest in Osborne Clarke’s work and training.

Secondly, the candidate’s writing at the end is not tailored enough. The candidate asserts an interest in Osborne Clarke’s “deep sector expertise” and “strategic thinking”. Not only are these statements vague and generic, but they are not unique features of Osborne Clarke. As a commercial client, you would hope that all law firms have sector expertise and think strategically. These are not unique features of Osborne Clarke. In turn, this paragraph does not do much to demonstrate the candidate’s interest in Osborne Clarke. As a rule, your writing is not tailored enough if you can swap out your chosen law firm’s name with any other firm in the City.

Whilst I enjoyed working on transactions across a range of sectors and regions, I am drawn to the higher level of analytical rigour needed in commercial law. My internships at a leading commercial chambers in London and at a German court have affirmed this. Performing complex research and legal drafting, I found that my undergraduate degree had helped me to develop relevant skills, such as the ability to evaluate information from multiple sources, form detailed arguments and present them effectively. I am keen to combine my client service experience and commercial mindset with my analytical and reasoning skills to solve complex issues for companies.

Feedback:  This time, the candidate leads in with a point that is better-tailored to commercial law. The candidate asserts that they are not only interested in transactions spanning across sectors/regions, but they also assert an interest in the unique legal rigour involved in this career path. Furthermore, the candidate makes good use of personal evidence and examples in this paragraph. The candidate identifies a specific personal experience, before explaining precisely what interested them about this and why their experience in London chambers/German courts developed their interest in commercial law. In turn, this convinces the recruiter that the candidate has a sustained interest in commercial law that has grown out of their legal experiences in London and Germany.

However, this paragraph somewhat misunderstands the question. It focuses entirely on the candidate’s general interest in commercial law, without ever explaining why the candidate wants to work for Osborne Clarke specifically. We are mindful that this question is worded in a confusing manner, in that it mentions both commercial law and Osborne Clarke. However, we believe this question only calls for discussion of your interest in Osborne Clarke specifically. As such, the candidate would have needed to explain a specific feature of Osborne Clarke before analysing how their personal experiences/examples back up their interest in that feature.

I am also attracted by Osborne Clarke’s focus on innovation. The firm’s development of a bespoke online platform for Vodafone exemplifies this forward-thinking approach. Working at an innovative firm would allow me to develop the skills necessary to succeed in a rapidly changing landscape as regards the delivery of legal services

Feedback: This paragraph also shows some improvement on the first one. This time, the candidate leads in by identifying a feature of Osborne Clarke that interests them specifically. Then, the candidate develops this point by drawing on a specific example from Osborne Clarke’s work. They use the Vodafone example in an attempt to tailor their writing and make it more specific to Osborne Clarke. In your own writing, you should develop your initial point by including specific research and examples. These should illustrate why that point is unique to Osborne Clarke. In turn, this will tailor your writing and demonstrate that you have thought seriously about a career at Osborne Clarke.

However, the candidate’s writing is still not quite tailored enough. The candidate identifies a bespoke online platform developed by Osborne Clarke, but does not go further in explaining (1) what this platform involved nor (2) how that makes Osborne Clarke a uniquely innovative firm. Indeed, Osborne Clarke is not the only firm to have developed online platforms. Many City firms now have bespoke legal technology strategies complete with unique innovation platforms. As such, the candidate’s writing needs to go further in tailoring the point to Osborne Clarke.

Furthermore, the candidate does not sufficiently explain their personal interest in this point. The candidate asserts that it would help them “develop the skills necessary to succeed”, but they never explain (1) why this specifically interests them nor (2) how their personal experiences developed their interest in Osborne Clarke’s innovation/technology. In turn, this means that the candidate’s writing is underdeveloped. It is not clear precisely why Osborne Clarke’s innovative strategy appeals to the candidate. In your own writing, you need to back up your writing with specific evidence and personal examples. This will demonstrate that you have an authentic, sustained interest in Osborne Clarke.

How have you gone about researching the legal market? What sources of information have you used? How has this led to you making an application to Osborne Clarke? Max 300 words

Events like ‘Maintaining The Edge Through Human Capital with OC’ shepherded my research, compelling me to apply to the firm. Partner Olivia Sinfield's insights into OC’s free-thinking mindset and the encouragement to “bring your wonky self to work” appealed to me. This value of individuality aligns with my background as a university coach. I worked with students with unique backgrounds, notably supporting one from a family with generational female illiteracy. I helped her secure an internship with the local council in rural India, where she developed girl child education programs. This experience underscores my desire to work at OC, where the core aspect of its culture—valuing independent thought—aligns with my passion for providing authentic and contextualised services.

Feedback: The candidate effectively adopts the PEEL structure by stating their point about attending specific events that influenced their decision to apply to OC. The explanation of the event is detailed and tied directly to personal experiences that resonate with the firm’s culture. The use of a personal anecdote involving coaching of a student ffrom a family with generational female illiteracy demonstrates evidence of aligning their values with the firm’s emphasis on individuality.

The firm website and Chambers Student supported my research, helping me learn about OC’s commitment to social mobility. My passion for social mobility stems from proposing and organising a career fair for at-risk youth in Delhi. The event resulted in 17 of 45 attendees securing employment, enabling me to witness first-hand the impact of opportunities and support. The experience heightened my interest in firms dedicated to empowering underserved communities. Accordingly, OC appealed to me through programmes like ‘The Bridge’ that are committed to helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds build sustainable careers, aligning seamlessly with my values.

Feedback: This paragraph starts well with a clear point about the sources used for research, but could be improved by initially stating what specific insights were gained from these sources before describing the candidate’s personal project. The explanation of the career fair project is appropriately-detailed, effectively using personal evidence to highlight skills relevant to social mobility which is a key area of focus for the firm. The candidate successfully ties this back to the firm’s initiatives, demonstrating sufficient research and tailored reasoning for their application.

Finally, I discovered OC's commitment to diversity through Associate Sav Sagar's interview with Lubna Shuja. This newfound awareness of OC's work with people who challenge the status quo resonated deeply with my South Asian background, steering my admiration toward the firm. Further commitments displayed by OC through networks for ethnic minorities like REACH also factor into my desire to join OC.

Feedback:  This paragraph introduces a new source of information and ties it into the candidate’s background and values. The mention of a specific Associate and OC’s work demonstrates tailored research. The paragraph concludes well by tying personal values to the firm’s diversity efforts, but could be more specific about how these efforts distinguish OC from other firms.

The prospect of contributing to this range of activities makes me eagerly anticipate the professional growth and personal fulfilment I can achieve at OC.

Feedback: The candidate's response to this question does not cover their research on the legal market. Although the candidate demonstrates tailored research, the response predominantly focuses on cultural fit and alignment with the firm's diversity efforts.

 The response can be strengthened by the following suggestions:

1. As a general suggestion, the candidate should first outline the research they have conducted on the legal market before delving into the sources and reasons for applying to OC.

2. The candidate could group the parts related to cultural fit into one main paragraph, and dedicate another paragraph to OC's client work, to show a comprehensive understanding of both the firm's client work and its culture.

What work has Osborne Clarke done recently that is of particular interest to you? Why do you feel inspired by this type of work? Max 300 words

OC Ventures interests me, and their recent advisory role in OXCCU's $22.7 million fundraising exemplifies the high-profile, client-focused, and industry-relevant work that inspires my career aspirations.

The intricacies of this transaction, involving both new and existing large investors, immediately stood out to me. OC’s dedication to maximising growth opportunities for all parties through innovative and efficient investments mirrors the principles I delved into during a Ropes & Gray private equity masterclass. This experience sparked my interest in corporate finance and investments, covering creative structures like earnouts, milestone-based funding, venture debt, auction fundraising, and adept negotiation with diverse stakeholders. OC’s work on this transaction exemplifies these concepts. The firm's ability to safeguard the company and adopt a thoughtful commercial and pragmatic approach, particularly appreciated by OXCCU CEO Andrew Symes, resonates deeply with me. This draws from my previous role as a content strategist for an education start-up, where negotiations with IT, graphics, and writer teams required harmonising various departmental interests.

Additionally, my virtual work experiences in M&A and IP, bridging the gap between academic knowledge and practical legal demands, have further enriched my understanding of this transaction. These experiences enabled me to grasp critical components of drafting, due diligence, and business development that are fundamental to the comprehensive support offered by OC.

Lastly, what particularly inspires me about this transaction is its focus on innovation. The investments aim to propel a pioneering project converting carbon dioxide into sustainable aviation fuel, eventually expanding into different markets that will benefit from this conversion process. In a world where sustainability is a core concern, this initiative is crucial. OC’s recognition of the relevance of decarbonisation in the business landscape, coupled with their competence in this area through a dedicated team, deeply impresses me. It underscores their commitment to leading the way in legal services.

Feedback: Again, the candidate provided a strong response. The candidate starts with a clear point by stating their interest in OC Ventures and highlighting the specific work that OC has recently done, i.e. OXCCU’s fundraising. The candidate gave three solid reasons that support their stance and provided detailed evidence by discussing the complexities of the transaction and demonstrating an understanding of the actual work of OC, as well as OC’s approach in OXCCU’s fundraising. References to their own experiences, such as the Ropers & Gray masterclass and the content strategist role, add personal evidence supporting their interest and capabilities. The explanation links their experience with the specifics of OXCCU’s fundraising, demonstrating an understanding of the role of OC in OXCCU’s fundraising. The response concludes by tying back to the initial point about why this type of work inspires them, particularly focusing on innovation and sustainability in legal services, which are obviously matters that OC cares about, as OC acknowledges the impact of digital transformation in Q1. The candidate specifically cites what is unique about OC’s work—their approach to innovative, sustainable projects and their ability to handle complex transactions efficiently. The candidate also successfully connects their past experiences and aspirations with OC’s specific legal practices, particularly emphasizing the firm’s commitment to sustainability, showcasing alignment with the firm.

There are several areas where it could be further improved:

1. The third paragraph is not specific enough. It can be easily applied to the other City firms’ application form questions by changing the firm name. The answer would be stronger if there is a more direct linkage on how these experience would make them a better candidate for OC specifically.

2. While the candidate connects their experience to the firm’s work, they could delve deeper into how these experiences equipped them with specific skills or insights that are directly applicable to working at OC.

3. The candidate could also explicitly state how their aspirations and OC’s directions are aligned, and could consider stating future contributions they hope to make at the firm if any. 

Word count (max. 250 words):
 In which location would you like to be based for your training contract?

I would like to be based in Cambridge, as I have personal connections to the area and wish to join my partner, who is living in that city, after my graduation. I have also previously lived in Cambridge for three months in the summer of 2017, when I worked for the Maison Clement Bakery. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there and I am confident that my choice to live there will be satisfactory. As to the work itself, Penningtons Manches has an office that has a reputation for making impactful deals across all its practice areas, as Legal 500 ranks the firm consistently as a top tier competitor in the area. Moreover, having talked to Jenny Vines, the graduate recruitment manager, I have found that the working culture in the Cambridge office promises a friendly atmosphere among motivated individuals, which convinced me to apply to the firm. I am also interested in this particular location, as the branch excels in the corporate and employment departments, which are key sectors that I look forward to work in, having gained an interest through my academic and vocational experience. Lastly, I wish to work in Cambridge, due to its reputation as the Silicon Fen, due to the existence of a hub of scientific firms. As I am keen on reading news about latest technologies, it would be fascinating to work with firms that create disruptive technologies.

[Feedback: Overall, this answer is a personal and persuasive response. The candidate does well in writing about their personal experiences with Cambridge. You should note that the candidate does not just claim that they have previous connections with the location, rather, they evidence such a connection by citing their previous work experience (and providing the relevant date).

The candidate should also be commended for their reference to their conversation with the firm’s graduate recruitment manager. Where possible, you should cite the conversations you have with the firm’s employees (such as trainees, associates, partners, or graduate recruitment team). By doing so, you demonstrate that you have taken steps to research the firm beyond its online materials and that you actually care about joining the firm.

Finally, the candidate demonstrates additional knowledge about the location, specifically citing the Silicon Fen area and linking it to their interests.

To further improve this answer, the candidate could have explained themselves better. For example, the candidate writes, ‘I am confident that my choice to live there will be satisfactory’. This sounds quite artificial and awkward. The candidate could have simply written, ‘I thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and I know I will continue to do so when I return’.

Furthermore, the candidate could have provided some evidence of their interest in technology and the disruption of markets. Many candidates will read or research different commercial areas. Prepare yourself to cite examples that go beyond this, such as attending webinars, reading certain books, or taking online courses.]

Please explain why you are applying to Pinsent Masons. (Max 4000 characters including spaces)

I want to train as a solicitor at Pinsent Masons because of their ability to foresee and adapt to an everchanging legal market - my recent work placement this summer at Pinsent Masons confirmed this resolve. I believe that training at Pinsent Masons provides me with the best opportunity to stay ahead of the curve and carve out a place among the next generation of future-oriented solicitors.

[Feedback: This is an interesting start to the answer. Typically, we would recommend getting straight into the main body of your answer; however, the extended word limits permit an introduction. The candidate nicely sets out an overall theme for their answer and highlights that their work experience at the firm justifies his claims about it.

To improve on the answer, we would recommend laying out the three main points you will make. Usually, we recommend writing about the firm’s (1) work, (2) training, and (3) culture. By stating this structure and a summary of the points you will make, you will ensure the recruiter can easily track the content of your answer and not miss any crucial points.]

Pinsent Masons has kept in lockstep with its clients through innovative ways to address their needs. In sitting down with the group of us selected for the work placement, Warwick Head, Greg Lowson, responded to my question as to how Pinsent Masons has met clients needs through innovation. He stated that freelance lawyer service, Vario, the development of legal solutions platform, SmartDelivery, and Pinsent Masons recent partnership with KLDiscovery to adapt ediscovery tools to subject access requests, are all examples of innovatively addressing the demand from particular clients without overextending. My supervisor, SmartDelivery Manager, Andrew Kane, also explained that this affords flexibility to focus on its core clients and sectors, whilst exploring areas of opportunity such as AI. These unconventional strategies are why Pinsent Masons is among Europe's most innovative firms.

[Feedback: Some small spelling and grammar improvements include:

1.     Adding in the missing apostrophe in ‘clients needs’.

2.     Changing the phrase ‘in lockstep’ (as it is an American phrase and not used as part of British English).

3.     Changing ‘ediscovery’ to ‘eDiscovery’.

Whilst making one error does not guarantee rejection, repeated errors (especially of the same kind) will result in your application will be treated less favourably. You should avoid these kinds of errors as they only serve to make your application increasingly more difficult for the recruiter to send through to the next stage.

Nevertheless, what is excellent about this paragraph is the level of detail included. The candidate cites names, quotes, and events with good levels of detail. Furthermore, this evidence has been employed with a central argument in mind, namely, the claim of Pinsent Mason’s innovation.

To improve this answer, a link back to the candidate’s firm motivation is needed. Whilst the candidate successfully argues for Pinsent Masons innovative nature, the candidate neglects to argue why this innovation is attractive to them and why they want to train at the firm because of such innovation. The candidate does mention in the preceding paragraph that innovation is a key factor in contributing to their motivation; however, this paragraph needs to (but does not) explain why it is such a contributing factor. Again, we would recommend a PEE/AL structure which would ensure that the paragraph stayed on track and directly answered the question.]

During my work placement, I also learned first-hand the technological emphasis Pinsent Masons puts into the delivery of its legal services. Working under Andrew Kane in the Employment and Transactional Services sector brought light to understanding how the firm develops its technological tools and implements them. For instance, I was fortunate enough to test an innovative online platform for major client, Mitie Group PLC, that quickly and effectively profiled, catalogued and addressed the steps involved in employment claims. This involved inputting data into the matter management software, building profiles of claims, claimants, representatives and stakeholders, and setting online tasks that would send information to the relevant parties. I concluded this testing by summarising my user-experience with this legal tool and sent this off to Andrew to evaluate. The firm's receptiveness to feedback and the obvious importance of rolling-out this tool correctly, exemplified Pinsent Masons commitment to looking past what a traditional law firm is capable of doing for its client and being bold in doing so.

[Feedback: Once again, this is a great paragraph when it comes to specificity and detail. The candidate walks the reader through the specifics of their role and tasks during their work placement, as well as the names of firms and individuals they worked with.

Similar to the preceding paragraph, the main point of improvement pertains to the candidate’s link between their discussion of their role and their motivation to train with the firm. The candidate makes an attempt to link the two when they cite that Pinsent Masons goes ‘past what a traditional law firm is capable of doing’; however, this is not particularly explanatory. Many law firms go past a traditional model; for example, Allen & Overy has a whole consulting arm offshoot.

To improve, the candidate would need to further examine what they enjoyed about their work, and how that represents Pinsent Masons as a whole. From there, it would be important for the candidate to explain why this experience of Pinsent Masons directly attracts them to training at the firm, compared to other similar firms.]

Whilst my focus is on entering the present legal market, I am also conscious of what work will be relevant in the future, and therefore my interest in Pinsent Masons is influenced by this. Pinsent Masons has a reputation for delivering on complex, innovative projects. This is evidenced by, for example, its advisory role to the Peterborough City Council in achieving its aim of becoming the UKs Environment Capital, or advising on a first-in-kind private equity and public sector investment into the £1 billion housing development at Winchburgh in Scotland. This allows Pinsent Masons to position itself for future success, and it is this distinct sustainability combined with a progressive outlook on the delivery of legal services that leads me to believe that training at Pinsent Masons is the best opportunity to begin and develop my career. As Senior Partner, Richard Foley, states, “Our clients don't have legal issues, they have commercial needs. What the best lawyers do is respond to those needs with a mix of imagination and pragmatism.” I back this statement whole-heartedly and hope to partake in carrying Pinsent Masons vision forward.

[Feedback: Though this is the last paragraph, it is important to maintain a high standard of written English. Unfortunately, the candidate’s quality of writing has slipped – they have missed an apostrophe in ‘the UKs Environmental Capital’ and should write ‘first-of-its-kind’ instead of ‘first-in-kind’.

Nevertheless, the candidate continues to provide lots of detail and specificity in their answers. The candidate evidences their claims about the firm’s work and innovation by citing, in decent detail, a deal that the firm recently did. Furthermore, the candidate has quoted the firm’s senior partner in an attempt to show the alignment between their values and the firm’s.

Once again, similar to our comment above, the main point of improvement would be for the candidate to provide a stronger link beyond claiming that their vision and values align with the firm’s. Statements like ‘I back this statement whole-heartedly and hope to partake in carrying Pinsent Masons vision forward’ are quite vague and do not give substantive reasons for the candidate’s motivation.

As the candidate has provided substantial detail, improving this answer should not be too difficult, as the answer is already on the right track. However, to better this answer, a clear point and link must be established. To check if you have written a strong paragraph, you should always ask yourself the following questions: ‘why am I interested in training with the firm?’, ‘what evidence do I have to substantiate this motivation?’, ‘how does this evidence substantiate this motivation?’.]

Why have you applied to Reed Smith in particular? Max 250 words

I am eager to apply to Reed Smith for 3 key reasons, aligning with my professional ambitions.

Firstly, the firm's industry expertise and global presence across 31 offices offer an exciting opportunity for global collaboration. Reed Smith's renowned litigatory practice, as 'Litigation Team of the Year' by BLA 2022, reaffirmed my litigation passions during my placement, as I was fascinated by Reed Smith lawyers remaining at the forefront of cutting-edge contentious work such as SKAT’s £1.5B Tax Fraud case. My engagement in the case provided a challenging environment with high-quality work that aligns with my intellectual drive.

Feedback: The candidate does well to state their interest from the outset, namely by highlighting their interest in Reed Smith’s practice area expertise and global presence. The explanation is reasonably well-supported by specific references to Reed Smith’s accolades (together with its involvement in high-profile cases like the SKAT’s Tax Fraud matter). This reference demonstrates that the candidate has undertaken some targeted and specific research into the firm. In turn, this demonstrates that the candidate has invested some level of sensible thought into Reed Smith before deciding to apply there.

However, the paragraph suffers from its lack of structure. The candidate tries to cram in their interests in (i) Reed Smith’s areas of expertise and (ii) its international presence, before shoving in statistics/accolades about each point separately. The candidate ultimately never explains their interest in either point (beyond using generic terms such as “cutting-edge work”). The reality is that these are two separate points. By trying to deal with the firm’s practice area in one go, the candidate ultimately cannot explain their interest in either point sufficiently. To avoid this issue, you should focus on just one point per paragraph. Then, you should drill down on your interest with reference to specific personal evidence and detailed research.

Secondly, Reed Smith's practice of granting junior roles significant responsibility from the outset, experienced during my placement ranging from direct client communication to attending in-person trials, immediately interested me as I enjoyed adapting to a fast-paced environment as it resonated with my proactive nature. This is furthered by the firm's investment in trainees, per the Cornerstone Trainee Development Programme, underscoring their commitment to early talent development.

Feedback: One strength of this paragraph is that the candidate appeals to direct experience with Reed Smith. In turn, this demonstrates the candidate’s sustained and authentic interest in Reed Smith (backed by personal experience). The candidate also does well to mention the Cornerstone Trainee Development Programme. By mentioning personal experience and knowledge of the firm, the candidate demonstrates that they have a traceable interest in Reed Smith that is backed up by personal experience. This also differentiates the candidate from their competitors (in that many applicants will not have direct experience with the firm).

That said, the candidate does not explain what Cornerstone actually is (nor how that makes Reed Smith unique). It goes without saying that all firms (hopefully!) take training seriously. They will all have bespoke and specific training programmes. As such, the candidate needs to explain what Cornerstone actually is and how it sets apart Reed Smith. It is not enough simply to assert that Cornerstone “grants juniors responsibility from the outset” – you will take on important responsibilities at all firms from the outset. Had the candidate been more specific, they could have convinced their recruiter of their authentic interest in the firm more effectively.

Finally, Reed Smith's innovation core value, as a finalist for FT’s 'Most Innovative' law firm, to exceed client expectations directly appealed to my ambitions of becoming a well-rounded lawyer. My unique placement experience in the innovation seat highlighted the firm's focus on 'out-of-the-box' thinking to cultivate ‘O-shaped’ lawyers, as reflected by the launch of the 2022 Global Innovations Lab to deliver next-generation legal services. This prioritisation of lateral thinking creates an environment where I believe I can thrive, aligning with my motivations in delivering exceptional client service.

Feedback: The candidate does well to identify a key point of interest from the outset (ie Reed Smith’s innovative strengths). Then, the candidate identifies some specific pieces of evidence to tailor their point to Reed Smith (namely, the 2022 Global Innovations Lab and the FT accolade). Finally, the candidate provides a reasonable explanation for their interest in innovation which is backed by specific personal experiences. This results in a coherent and well-structured paragraph that is easy for the recruiter to comprehend. You should adopt a similar PEEL structure (point, evidence, explanation, link) in your own writing. This will help you produce a well-crafted motivational argument that coherently expresses your interest in the firm.

That said, the paragraph is still lacking detail in places. The candidate mentions their experience in an innovation seat, but they do not explain (i) precisely what that entailed nor (ii) how it developed their interest in Reed Smith’s wider strategy. Similarly, the candidate mentions Reed Smith’s accolades/notable features at a surface level but does little to explain this evidence further. Had the candidate drilled down on these points in specific detail, they would have done a much better job at differentiating Reed Smith and explaining their personal motivations.

Why are you applying to RPC? (300 words max) *

Having enjoyed my exposure to contentious work during a Vacation Scheme in Employment, RPC’s expansive litigation offering attracted me initially. At the Insight Day, learning more about the market-leading Media team solidified the firm’s appeal. My participation in the Young Reporter scheme drew me to this sector, and RPC’s role in the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation, for example, combines both interests. Moreover, the strength of the Sports and Entertainment Group appeals to me. At [redacted university], I was on the Sports Business Group committee, creating content and disseminating the latest industry updates. At RPC, I would be keen to contribute to “Sports Ticker”. Although these particular sectors stand out to me, I value the opportunity to explore where my interests lie. A broader experience provides a more holistic insight into how various aspects of matters fit together, which RPC, a full-service firm, provides.

Feedback: This looks to be a strong first paragraph that is structured coherently via the PEEL/AL structure. First, the candidate states a strong and objective point of interest from the outset. By prioritising RPC’s litigation strength from the outset, the candidate gets to the very heart of what RPC do as a business. This demonstrates that the candidate has a sustained, personal and long-term interest in starting their work at RPC. We also like how the candidate develops their point by using specific facts and research about the firm. The candidate starts by discussing their Insight Day experience, before discussing a specific case that RPC involved themselves in. This helps tailor the candidate’s reasoning towards RPC, which in turn demonstrates that they have researched RPC seriously (and so they have a sustained commitment to the firm). This convinces the recruiter that the candidate’s interest is genuine.

You should also note how the candidate backs up their reasoning with specific, personalised examples. The candidate backs up each point of interest with a personal example. In turn, these help persuade the recruiter that the candidate has a strong personal interest in each of RPC’s practice areas. In your own writing, you must back up your points with specific and personalised examples. Once you have written a strong and well-tailored motivational point to RPC, you must then back up your interest in that point by deploying specific, detailed and personalised examples. These can flow from any work/extra-curricular experience to date.

However, this paragraph suffers because it is lacking in focus. The candidate crams a variety of RPC practice areas into one paragraph. They begin by asserting an interest in RPC’s Media team, before quickly jumping towards its Sports and Entertainment group. Given the word count restrictions, the candidate cannot fully develop their interest in each point. For instance, the candidate asserts an interest in RPC’s role in the Mirror case but they never explain (1) precisely what interests them about this case nor (2) precisely how that ties back in with their personal evidence. Similarly, the candidate asserts that they are interested in RPC’s “Sports Ticker” but they never explain the precise reasons for being interested in it. Instead, the candidate should have devoted one paragraph towards each practice area. This would allow them to drill down on and unpack their interest in each area in precise, specific detail.

As I am motivated by personal development, an environment that will push me intellectually is paramount. RPC trainees are afforded real responsibility, even participating in Business Development through the “Trainees Take on Business” blog. Moreover, my confidence stems from being valued for my hard work and commitment to promoting my team’s success, which is why I thrive in team sports. RPC actively maps talent across the board, and the internal ‘Springboard’ provides opportunities for my advancement. The culture of open feedback and collaboration ensures I will feel supported.

Feedback: This paragraph now moves onto another feature of RPC, namely its training contract approach. The candidate does well to identify a feature of RPC’s training contract (namely that trainees are afford responsibility). Then, you should note how the candidate backs up their point with specific examples and facts about the firm. The candidate develops their point by referring to both the blog and the Springboard scheme, which adds persuasive weight to the candidate’s arguments. In turn, this research demonstrates that the candidate has invested time into RPC (and so has a sustained commitment to the firm).

You should also note how the candidate prioritises their points. They began their answer by discussing objective features of RPC’s work and practice areas, which get to the core of how RPC operates as a business. Once these points are dealt with, the candidate discusses another objective feature that is more relevant to the candidate in the short term – namely its training. We agree with this approach. You should always prioritise the firm’s work and practice areas, before covering the firm’s training and wider team structures only if you have space.

However, this paragraph is weaker than the previous in two regards:

1.     The candidate’s point is not well-tailored to RPC. Whilst it might be true that RPC trainees get “real responsibility”, the same can be said for nearly any firm in the City. Many City law firms will market themselves as offering trainees “real responsibility”, particularly those with leanly-staffed deal teams and smaller trainee intakes. The examples provided by the candidate do not currently go far enough in tailoring their reasoning. The candidate gives the blog and the “Springboard” scheme as example, but they never fully explain what each of these involve nor how they make RPC unique against other law firms. As such, the candidate’s reasoning is currently not specific enough to RPC.

2.     The candidate does not back up their writing with any personalised examples. For instance, the candidate asserts that they want an “environment that pushes [them] intellectually” but they never explain why this point interests them nor how their personal examples and experiences demonstrate that interest. Instead, we would expect the candidate to provide a high-quality personal example wherein they took on meaningful responsibilities. Then, the candidate would need to unpack what interested them about that experience before explaining precisely how that experience relates back to RPC.

Finally, being appreciated for my personability is fundamental. RPC recognises how an open-plan office and flat hierarchy encourage camaraderie between co-workers, subsequently improving collaboration and productivity. The combination of high-quality work for impressive clients while retaining a culture that promotes individuality and champions your development is unparalleled. This aligns with my desire to pursue a stimulating career without sacrificing character and my passion for Netball, a social activity at RPC.

Feedback: Finally, the candidate moves towards RPC’s culture. You should note how the candidate backs up their interest in RPC’s culture by talking about specific, objective features of the firm. They discuss RPC’s open-plan office and flat hierarchical structure, before analysing how these objective features result in improved productivity and a higher-performing work environment for the candidate. This elevates a weak subjective point about the firm’s culture into an objective point that is backed up by the candidate’s research into RPC. We generally advise against discussing the firm’s culture in your “Why X firm?” answers. This is because culture is a subjective feature that you cannot truly understand until you work at the firm. However, if you must talk about it then you should back it up with objective analysis (as the candidate has done here). 

However, this paragraph suffers from a couple of weaknesses. First, the candidate’s argument is not sufficiently developed. For instance, the candidate asserts that the firm’s open-plan office results in a better culture, but they do not provide any specific details or evidence explaining why this is the case. Many firms offer open-plan offices without this necessarily resulting in a substantial cultural change. Similarly, the candidate asserts that these features “improve productivity” and result in a “culture championing individuality and your personal development”. They never explain exactly how the firm’s open plan and flat hierarchy result in these cultural features. These are not self-explanatory. In your own writing, you need to make sure that any assertions you make are backed up by high-quality evidence and specific research.

Secondly, the candidate does not tie their personal experiences back in with their initial motivational point. The candidate asserts an interest in RPC’s open-plan office and hierarchy, but they do not explain (1) how their asserted “personability” relates to this nor (2) how their experience in Netball would help them thrive in this environment. In your own writing, you need to make sure that your interest in the firm is backed up by specific examples and personalised evidence. In turn, this will demonstrate that you have a sustained and authentic interest in working at the firm. 

Please use this space to explain your interest in pursuing a legal career at a city law firm, and your interest in Shearman & Sterling LLP. (250)

My interest in a career in commercial law has developed through attending insight days, workshops, and fairs with city firms. The variety of work in commercial law appeals to my inquisitive nature, and I am drawn to the ability to apply my creative problem-solving skills to challenging commercial issues. Specifically, I am interested in a career at a city firm due to the high-value work; I am a results-driven individual, so the ability to work on high-impact deals motivates me. In addition, I am attracted to the multijurisdictional element of work at city law firms. As an East Asian Studies graduate, the opportunity to utilise my intercultural communication on cross-border transactions particularly appeals. Therefore, I wish to pursue a legal career at a global city firm.

[Feedback: We recommend that answers to this question should be split into two paragraphs, as this candidate has done: (1) why you are pursuing a career in commercial law, specifically in the City (namely, ‘Big Law’), and (2) why do you want to train/work at Shearman & Sterling?

This paragraph does well to highlight the attractive features of commercial law in the City and the competencies that S&S (and other firms) look for. Furthermore, the candidate makes a decent attempt to link their personal experiences/university degree to their attraction to such a career which is especially notable given their non-law degree. We would recommend that, if presented with the opportunity to do so, candidates from a non-law background use their degree as evidence for certain interests. In this instance, the candidate has used their East Asian Studies degree to evidence their intercultural communication skills and interest in multijurisdictional work. So long as you explain how that degree supports your claims, mentioning your course can be useful.

The main point of improvement for this answer is that it crams several points into one paragraph. The candidate makes the following points regarding why they want to pursue a career in commercial law (at a City law firm):

1.     Varied work.

2.     High-value work.

3.     Multijurisdictional work. 

Whilst these are interrelated, the candidate cites separate pieces of evidence to substantiate each one. The issue with this is that each point is substantially underdeveloped, and the evidence is weak. For example, the candidate cites that they are attracted to high-value work and, to substantiate that claim, they are a results-driven individual. However, they do not provide any evidence to back up the claim that they are a ‘results-driven individual’. As the candidate has put several points into one paragraph, there is no space for them to develop their point with the appropriate evidence or link. Consequently, we would always recommend sticking with one point per paragraph as, in our experience, depth is always better than breadth.]

I am applying to Shearman due to its international presence and strength in project finance. Having worked on infrastructure projects at a consultancy since university, I have become interested in project finance, particularly drawn to the cross-border collaboration and tangible impact of projects. Shearman’s winning of eight Project Finance International awards in 2019 highlights its dominance in the sector, appealing to my career aspirations. The prospect of a small trainee intake also appeals, ensuring higher levels of responsibility and development from an early stage. While small intakes are not uncommon at U.S. firms, Shearman’s solid establishment in London ensures inclusivity and less of a cutthroat culture. I confirmed this speaking to trainees at a Shearman campus event, thereby solidifying my interest in the firm.

[Feedback: This paragraph starts off well; however, the candidate then shoehorns another point into the answer.

First, the candidate does well to pick out Shearman & Sterling’s strengths in project finance. The candidate justifies their interest in project finance with a personal experience (instead of saying ‘consultancy’, it would have been better to name the organisation – this goes for all types of evidence) and gives evidence for Shearman’s prowess in the practice area.

Second, the candidate pivots their answer away from the work S&S does, to their training. Whilst ordinarily we would recommend discussing a firm’s work, training and culture in a ‘why firm?’ answer, in such a short paragraph, addressing all three can make the answer less coherent. The candidate then goes on to address the firm’s small trainee intake and their longstanding presence in London.

One of the main issues with this answer is that it lacks specificity. Whilst the candidate does cite some evidence for their claims, there is a lack of sufficient detail. For example, the candidate cites the ‘Shearman campus event’ as evidence for the firm’s lack of a cutthroat culture. However, the candidate does not mention when/where this event occurred, who they spoke to, or a quote. Hence, the recruiter may be unconvinced that the candidate did actually attend such an event, as anyone could have written this. Consequently, this evidence fails to properly support their answer. This is almost certainly as a result of the candidate adding too many points into their paragraph. If you stick to one point per paragraph, you will ensure that you have the requisite space to fully develop your answers.

A second issue with this paragraph is its lack of strong argumentation. The candidate does give reasons for wanting to train/work at S&S; however, these reasons are not fully developed, and the candidate does not properly explain how such reasons factor into their choice of S&S. For example, the candidate cites their prior experience with infrastructure projects at a consultancy during university as evidence for their attraction to the kind of work that S&S does/is good at. However, other than giving evidence that S&S is indeed good with regards to project finance work, the candidate fails to explain why they are interested in project finance work. Hence, a cynical recruiter might think that the candidate has merely identified something that Shearman & Sterling is good at and attempted to align themselves with that interest, rather than the candidate being genuinely interested in that field.]

Describe why you want to be a trainee solicitor at Shoosmiths?

During my time at University, I was a Campus Ambassador for Aspiring Solicitors. Through this work, I became aware of Shoosmiths’ commitment to diversity, and attended an insight evening hosted specifically for Aspiring Solicitors candidates at the Manchester office. I found the firm's positive and open culture to be very refreshing, and spoke to solicitors at different stages of their careers, who were all enthusiastic about the firm and the work they did. Following this, I followed Shoosmiths on various social media platforms, to keep up to date about further events and information about the firm. I was pleased to see that the culture of the firm which I experienced at the insight evening was reflected in its social media. The firm's focus on people is clear, and makes it a firm that resonates with my own values and experience as a dedicated public servant in local government.

[Feedback: This paragraph is effective because it follows a logical structure, which allows the reader to follow the candidate’s train of thought with relative ease. To achieve a similar effect, we would recommend following the PEEL (point, evidence, explanation, link)/ AL (analysis, link) structure. In this case, the candidate incorporates the elements of the PEEL structure, albeit not in their nominal order. We would avoid citing firms’ social media activity as “evidence” in support of a “point”; it is intangible and, more often than not, inconsequential. We would recommend highlighting relevant rankings, awards, projects, or initiatives instead.

Sharing personal insights lends more credibility to your answer, especially if you choose to discuss a firm’s culture. Since it is unlikely that you have spent a meaningful amount of time at the firm, you cannot know what it is actually like to work there. As such, discussing the firm’s culture relative to information found online or marketing materials will probably be perceived as a bit of a stretch. However, citing your attendance at an insight event and/ or interactions with firm representatives – as the candidate does in this case – is generally good practice.

Nevertheless, as important as the quality of your working environment may be for you, most of your time at the firm would be divided between training and tending to client matters. As such, your mission is to convince the recruiter that you are interested in (i) the kind of work undertaken by the firm, (ii) the kind of training programme it offers, and (iii) any unique selling points (USPs) it boasts over competitors. Granted, law firms tend to place a great deal of emphasis on their culture and Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) initiatives in their marketing materials. However, candidates should not seek to emulate the same sentiment in their answers because the two pieces of writing have distinct purposes and target readers.

Note: unnecessary commas in various places (e.g., “I followed Shoosmiths […], to keep up to date”), incorrect preposition at “keep up to date about”.

I have worked on projects with far-reaching implications in the both the public sector and business world. For example, I am working in a project team which is delivering the [redacted], a national scheme to reduce the level of air pollution in [redacted]. Grants and loans are offered to businesses impacted by the charges coming into force, in order for them to upgrade their vehicles to meet emission standards. I led on the evaluations for the grant scheme, liaising with businesses to support them during the application process and [redacted]. This experience has given me insight into the way businesses work, and the impact of policy on business and I believe that a good understanding of the public sector would be invaluable to many commercial clients who often liaise with public sector agencies.

[Feedback: Although it showcases the candidate’s impressive work experience, this paragraph adds little value to the overall answer. It fails to elucidate why the candidate wants to be a trainee solicitor instead of e.g., a business consultant. It also fails to elucidate why they have chosen to apply to Shoosmiths instead of e.g., Burges Salmon. This paragraph reads like an entry meant for the “Work Experience” section of the application form, rather than a persuasive expression of the candidate’s motivation. An explanation as to why a career in commercial law / at Shoosmiths appeals to the candidate would have served as a more effective use of the word count in this instance.

Note: typo at “in the both the”, inconsistent use of verbal tenses (e.g., “I am working” followed by “I led”).

Describe why you want to be a trainee lawyer at Shoosmiths.

At Shoosmiths' [redacted] Insight Evening 2020, I discussed the broad variety of Shoosmiths' work with [redacted Shoosmiths' partner] such as defending leading car manufacturers, acting for a robotic milking equipment supplier, and recently advising the high street brand Monsoon. This diversity motivates me to become a trainee at Shoosmiths because, currently, as an NHS legal assistant, I enjoy working with varying medical negligence claims that are specific to each individual as each case presents new stimulating challenges. Shoosmiths’ diverse work indicates that as a trainee, I would have the opportunity to engage in a variety of practice areas to develop my interests by learning to find solutions for Shoosmiths’ dynamic clientele range.

[Feedback: This kind of question (‘why this firm?’) warrants a point, evidence, explanation, link (‘PEEL’) structured answer. When you assemble your paragraphs using this structure, you will ensure that you directly answer the question and employ the specific detail required to make it persuasive and believable. Furthermore, when answering this kind of question, you should focus on the firm’s work, training, and culture (in order of priority).

The candidate’s first paragraph focuses on the firm’s work. The candidate does not follow the PEEL structure but instead leads with some evidence which implies a point: a diverse range of clients engage the firm and, subsequently, allow Shoosmiths’ lawyers to take on a variety of work. The candidate then goes on to explain why that diversity of work is important to them by way of their specific practice area interests and their desire to develop such interests.

Although the paragraph adopts an unconventional structure, broadly speaking, the answer is good. You should note the level of detail included in the candidate’s response. The candidate gives a specific piece of evidence to substantiate their claim about the firm’s work: Shoosmiths’ Insight Evening. Furthermore, the candidate names the partner they spoke to and described some of the specific areas of work they discussed with them. Furthermore, the candidate links their answer back to themselves, discussing their personal experiences and interests. Overall, the candidate has provided a well-evidenced and personalised answer.

Nevertheless, to improve their answer, the candidate could have elaborated more on what exactly it is about ‘diverse work’ that interests them. Whilst the candidate does give some evidence that they enjoy and are suited to a broad range of work, and they wish to develop their interests, they do not explicitly say what it is about the work that they like. You must make sure to be as explicit as possible when writing your answers. The recruiter is unlikely to make favourable inferences when they read your application form: if you want them to think something, you must communicate it in your writing.

For instance, in this case, the candidate could have given an argument that ‘diverse work’ would allow them to explore and develop their interests and then given some examples of such interests. Merely claiming that you have interests is too vague. Any candidate can claim to have interests; therefore, you must give different pieces of specific evidence to demonstrate you genuinely hold such interests.]

Continually, I deepened my understanding of Shoosmiths’ business strategy to become the UK's leading law firm by focusing on client experience. Previously, I worked as a personal assistant for clients visiting [ME city]. I was responsible for making the client's experience as straightforward as possible. I built long-term relationships as clients requested my assistance when returning. I want to become a part of facilitating this strategy because it presents the opportunity for me to grow with Shoosmiths by developing lasting partnerships with clients.

[Feedback: In this paragraph, the candidate focuses on discussing their own personal experiences and relating them back to the firm. The candidate does well to mention their own work experience. Many candidates, when answering these kinds of questions, become overly focused on the firm. You must remember that you have to cite not only the features of the firm but also your own traits and dispositions. The recruiter wants to see how you and the firm fit together, not just that the firm is objectively a place where people, in general, would like to work.

Furthermore, the candidate attempts to link their personal experience to the firm’s strategy. When you write your answers, you should never forget to end your paragraphs with this kind of link. The recruiter wants to read about your personal experience, your explanation of it, but then, crucially, why this matters in relation to the overall question (namely, why you want to train at the firm). If you forget to include a link, you risk the recruiter asking, “…so what?” – each answer has a very restrictive word limit, so you must ensure you directly answer the question.

To improve this answer, the candidate should have adopted the proper PEEL structure. The candidate begins their paragraph by stating they regularly deepened their understanding of the firm’s business strategy. Unfortunately, the candidate does not explain how they did so, nor does such a statement make any relevant claims about the firm (and why the candidate would like to work there). When you write your answers, you must remember the question at hand and be sure to answer it in your opening sentence. By doing so, you will ensure that you not only answer the question, but the recruiter sees that you have done so.

As a result of not providing a clear point, the rest of the candidate’s section is lacking in strong argumentation. Whilst the candidate does provide some good evidence, it is not clear as to what such evidence is in aid of. Furthermore, the candidate needed to take their claim further. Many law firms will foster long-standing relationships with clients and give you the opportunity ‘to grow’ with the firm. Hence, the candidate should have elaborated on what makes Shoosmiths different to others in this regard.]

Furthermore, I toured Shoosmiths’ open-plan [redacted] office. I learnt how trainees have the opportunity to learn from others in a collaborative environment. The open-plan office at my workplace has encouraged me to take the initiative on complex cases since guidance is there when needed. Hence, Shoosmiths’ approachable culture motivates me to become a trainee to continually develop my skills. Additionally, [redacted Shoosmiths associate] informed me of her refugee work with the Manuel Bravo project. This struck a personal interest with me because I volunteered as a refugee sponsor with Emirates Red Crescent in [redacted ME city], and I am eager to develop my refugee work through Shoosmiths’ pro bono opportunities.

[Feedback: This section focuses on the firm’s culture. Once again, the candidate leads with an example that itself implies a claim: Shoosmiths fosters a collaborative environment which the candidate finds attractive. The candidate does well to cite their own experience to justify their claim that they want and would thrive in such an environment. You should note that the candidate does not merely claim that because they have prior experience, their claim must be true. They explain how their experience of an open plan office was beneficial and how that might translate to working at the firm.

The candidate also mentions that they spoke to a particular associate and learnt about a specific project. The candidate relates this back to themselves by discussing their own experience volunteering and linking it to a claim that they would like to continue their work with refugees at the firm.

Overall, the answer is good. The candidate is precise when citing examples and evidence. You should note how the candidate cites individuals’ names, the location of the office, and the names of the project and charitable organisation. When you write your answers, you should do the same: include as many facts and statistics as possible. These details are what will lend your answer credence and make it more persuasive.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have provided more evidence for Shoosmiths’ collaborative environment. Many law firms will claim to have an open-plan office or a ‘no doors policy’. Therefore, an open-plan office per se does not make Shoosmiths’ ‘collaborative environment’ significantly different from other law firms. Hence, the candidate needed to have provided supplementary evidence to reinforce their claim and to demonstrate that the firm’s ‘collaborative environment’ is unique and better than the firm’s competitors.]

Describe why you want to be a trainee solicitor at Shoosmiths. (300w/300w)

When I first started searching for training contracts in law firms which tend to offer more direct client exposure to trainees and a high-quality of work, I subsequently found out about Shoosmiths, and I felt like I found a perfect match. The firm is a national leader in many commercial sectors, including the ones I’m primarily interested in, namely Banking and Finance; Corporate; Pensions; Tax and Real Estate. I received 1st class grades in similar modules on my LLB and I chose corresponding modules for my electives in my LPC MSc. In addition to this, I was drawn to the work Shoosmiths’ associates do on deals with private equity firms.

Feedback: When addressing “why firm?” questions such as this, we recommend that you identify no more than 2-3 key motivational points before analysing them in detail. You need to restrict your number of points so that you can analyse each one thoroughly whilst also meeting the word count. The candidate has done that sensibly here. They structure their answer into two paragraphs, with one addressing Shoosmiths’ practice area strengths and another addressing its training programme. This gives the candidate enough space to explain each point thoroughly (using tailored research about the firm) before backing up their interest in each with personalised examples.

You should also note that the candidate has prioritised their points well by starting with Shoosmiths’ practice areas. These are always the most convincing reasons because they get to the core of Shoosmiths’ business operations. Once this point is dealt with in full, the candidate then dedicates a separate paragraph to Shoosmiths’ training programme. We recommend that candidates address “why firm?” questions by dealing with (1) the firm’s work, (2) the firm’s training programme and (3) the firm’s culture in descending order of priority. This is because you can identify objective and tangible features about the firm’s work and training quality, which in turn makes your writing more convincing. By comparison, it is harder to convince recruiters of your interest in the firm’s culture/working environment because you have not actually worked there yet. As such, your analysis will reply on subjective comments/feedback by existing members of the firm and so will be less convincing overall. 

This first paragraph is nonetheless quite weak. The central issue is that the candidate’s reasoning is not tailored enough in several regards:

1. The candidate identifies various practice areas but does not explain what makes Shoosmiths’ work in these areas unique nor why that interests them. Nearly every major City firm offers finance, corporate, pensions, tax and real estate seats – these are not unique features of Shoosmiths. The candidate otherwise offers no insight into how Shoosmiths stands out across each area. As such, the candidate should have demonstrated much better research into the work that Shoosmiths does in each field. It is not sufficient to say that Shoosmiths is a “national leader” because (1) it is unclear what the candidate means by this and (2) many other firms offer strong Chambers rankings in these areas. You would expect many of Shoosmiths’ competitors (such as Addleshaw Goddard) to describe themselves as “national leaders” in a similar way.

2. The candidate asserts an interest in Shoosmiths’ private equity work but never explains what is unique about this work nor what they find interesting in it. Many firms (particularly US ones) offer exceptional strengths in private equity. Shoosmiths are not particularly known for private equity (unlike, say, Weil or Kirkland & Ellis) so the candidate would need to provide insight into why Shoosmiths’ work in this area appeals to them. The candidate’s motivations for Shoosmiths therefore remain unclear.

As a rule, your reasoning is not tailored enough if you can swap out the firm’s name with another’s and it would make just as much sense. For instance, the last sentence could easily be replaced with “I was drawn to the work that Kirkland & Ellis’ private equity associates do” and it would make just as much sense.

Another issue is that the candidate’s supporting evidence is weak and unexplained. Though the candidate might have achieved 1st class grades in these areas, this does not itself explain the candidate’s interest in these areas. Many students would also have achieved 1st classes in these areas without necessarily being interested in them. In your own answers, you must support your writing with high-quality personal evidence before explaining how it ties back in with your point.

You should also watch out for using abbreviations and informal language. The candidate uses “I’m” instead of “I am” at one point, which detracts from the candidate’s tone of writing and overall professionalism. You should not rely on abbreviations and informal language to meet word count limits. If you are struggling with the word count, then your writing is not concise enough and so you need to make grammatical tweaks or substantial cutbacks elsewhere.

I learned about this after attending a virtual event “Corporate Law at Shoosmiths”. The firms’ associates explored the day-to-day work of a corporate lawyer at Shoosmiths. I am used to this style of working as I used to work in a large [redacted company type] in London where I worked on many projects at once with strict, and often, short deadlines. The high-quality training programme at Shoosmiths is also another reason as to why I chose to apply. I read many testimonies from Shoosmiths trainees and was impressed by the common appraisals highlighting the approachability of the colleagues, involvement of the trainees in deals from the early stages, high quality of the work and the level of support the trainees’ receive in their professional development. Such an environment is one which I believe I would greatly benefit from, as I want to focus on my professional development and exploration of different commercial areas of law. Considering that in any case I would be supported by the experts in those areas, I believe that training at Shoosmiths would allow me to become the similarly high-quality lawyer I aspire to be.

Feedback: The candidate’s writing is better in this paragraph, if not structurally disjointed. It has some strengths:

1. The candidate makes use of a virtual event they attended with Shoosmiths (though it is incongruous with their points about Shoosmiths’ training). This persuades the recruiter that the candidate’s interest in Shoosmiths is authentic and based on long-term commitment. Wherever possible, you should attend open days/insight events/networking sessions with your intended firms so that you can use them as high-quality and personalised evidence later on.

2. The candidate ties their personal experiences back in with Shoosmiths slightly better here. We are given some insight into the candidate’s work experience and their resultant interest in fast-paced work, which in turn might explain their interest in Shoosmiths.

However, the paragraph suffers two glaring weaknesses. First, the structure is disjointed. The candidate leads in by describing their attendance at a virtual event, which seems more relevant to the previous paragraph than the current one. Then, the candidate describes how they enjoy a “style of working” involving strict deadlines. This does not follow from the candidate’s previous writing. Finally, the candidate makes a new point about their interest in the training. This results in a somewhat confusing paragraph that is hard to follow.

Secondly, the candidate’s writing is not tailored enough to Shoosmiths. Every firm in the City will offer you “approachable colleagues”, “high quality of work”, “support in professional development” and “involvement in the early stages of deals”. These are basic features of commercial law. They are not unique to Shoosmiths. The candidate would have needed to explain the unique structural features of Shoosmiths’ training (e.g. the seat count, rotations etc) before analysing why those features are appealing.

For avoidance of doubt, you should follow the PEEL structure. This involves starting with (1) a tailored and unique motivational point (P), before (2) providing personalised evidence supporting your interest and explaining fully how it does so (E/E) and finally (3) linking your explanations/evidence back to your interest in the point (L). This will result in a coherent and well-argued answer.

Why does a career in commercial law and specifically Sidley Austin interest you? (250)

Problem-solving within a set of parameters first drew me to commercial law. I studied philosophy at university to become a vicar. After realising priesthood was not for me, I became drawn to law as it similarly offers the chance to guide others based upon a set of principles.

Feedback:  There is no harm in writing a brief introductory paragraph in these types of questions. However, it must contribute to your overall argument in some fashion. The word count is highly restrictive, so you must make sure that you do not compromise on the overall quality of your answer by writing an introduction. The candidate does this well here. They provide background and context about the starting point for their interest in commercial law, whilst also demonstrating that they have considered (and so rejected) other career paths in favour of commercial law. This makes the candidate’s writing far more convincing and tailored to commercial law overall. You should also make sure that your reasoning for commercial law is specific and well-tailored. If your reasons are generic and applicable to any other career path in the City, then the recruiter will doubt your motivations for this career path.

That said, one issue with this paragraph is that it is not tailored enough to commercial law. You will solve problems and “guide others based on a set of principles” in every City career path, not just commercial law. As a general rule, you should check that your reasoning is tailored enough by replacing “commercial law” with any other career path. If the new sentence makes just as much sense, then you are not being specific enough. For example:

●        “I am interested in commercial law because I can solve problems.”

This can just as easily be replaced with...

●        I am interested in consulting because I can solve problems.”

… and it would make just as much sense.

 We will give the candidate the benefit of the doubt here because the rest of their answer is strong. However, you should always make sure that your writing is as tailored as it can be.

I am particularly interested in commercial law because of commerce’s ability to creatively solve and anticipate problems. Cofounding a childcare business showed me that anticipating consumers’ issues is key to business success. Commercial lawyers are central to this exciting problem-solving process. During my [Magic Circle law firm] vacation scheme, I saw how antitrust was integral to a megamerger’s success. Moreover, during a placement at [Silver Circle law firm], I found the multi-jurisdictional nature of a High Court litigation to be technically interesting. As an analyst of financial risk and regulation, I enjoy creatively interpreting seemingly rigid financial regulations. I now want to expand the remit of my role and, as a commercial lawyer, engage with a wider variety of legislation and companies.

Feedback:  The candidate does well to prioritise depth over breadth in this answer, namely by picking just two reasons and analysing them in detail. This means that the candidate can provide a complete insight into their interest in commercial law, within the remit of a very tight word count.

The candidate’s writing is also persuasive because it is well-structured. Specifically, the candidate follows PEEL/AL (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link). They do so by (1) leading in with a point about their interest in commercial law before (2) providing their experience in business/on vacation schemes as evidence, then (3) explaining/analysing how this evidence developed the candidate’s interest in commercial law before (4) linking their analysis back to the initial point. This makes the candidate’s writing easier to follow and so be convinced by overall. You should aim for a similar structure so that your argument is logical, well-structured and easier to follow.

You should note the strength of this candidate’s evidence. The candidate deploys high-quality, personalised evidence from a variety of business/law firm experiences to explain how their interest in commercial law developed over time. This demonstrates that the candidate has thought seriously about this career path, and so has taken concrete steps to consolidate their interest in commercial law. Where possible, you should also make use of open days, internships and work experience so that you paint a complete picture of your interest in commercial law.

However, this candidate’s analysis needed to improve in two regards. For one, the candidate’s first reason is not sufficiently tailored to commercial law. The candidate asserts an interest in how business solves problems and anticipates consumer issues. The issue is that this point is just as applicable to every commercial advisory/consultancy position in the City. It is also unclear what problems/business issues the candidate is referring to. As such, the candidate needed to explain precisely how commercial lawyers solve problems and anticipate issues for clients.

Secondly, the candidate needed to analyse their second point more thoroughly. While the candidate asserts interests in (1) antitrust and (2) the multi-jurisdictional elements of commercial law more widely, they do not explain specifically what interests them about each of these elements. The candidate starts to explain their wider interest in commercial law towards the end, but they still do not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the aforementioned features. You should always make sure that you analyse and explain each point thoroughly. If you do not have space, then you should cut out these points in favour of more detailed analysis elsewhere.

The candidate’s analysis nonetheless needs to be tighter. First, the candidate asserts that commercial law involves a crossover between law and commercial reality (true!), but she never explains precisely what she means by this nor why that appeals to her personally. This also makes the candidate’s linking sentence at the end quite weak. It is not clear that the candidate understands how commercial lawyers protect clients against risk and utilise industry risks, nor does she explain why these appeal to her. It is also unclear how a session on product development led the candidate to this conclusion. As such, the candidate needed to provide more specific and detailed evidence explaining her personal interest in the point.

I am drawn to Sidley Austin (SA) for its strong financial service regulatory practice. I want to continue giving financial regulatory advice but now from a legal perspective. SA’s aggressive growth in private equity is also attractive. Having specialised in corporate finance at university, I want to further develop my understanding of company valuation and acquisition. Finally, SA’s small trainee intake appeals to me. Having led multiple societies at university whilst working a part-time job, I enjoy shouldering significant responsibility.

Feedback: The candidate now moves onto the second element of the question, namely “why Sidley”. The candidate has done well to address (1) why commercial law and (2) why Sidley in roughly equal depth, which means that they have addressed each feature of the question properly. You should aim to address these elements in similar word count allocations of roughly 125 words to each.

This paragraph is nonetheless much weaker than the first. The first issue is that neither of the points are tailored enough to Sidley:

1. The candidate asserts separate interests in Sidley’s regulatory and private equity practice areas, but does not explain (1) what is unique about Sidley’s work in either of these areas nor (2) why these practice areas appeal to the candidate specifically. This makes the candidate’s reasoning quite generic. These points could be just as applicable to other US firms with similar strengths, such as Latham & Watkins or Kirkland & Ellis.

2. While SA does indeed have a small trainee intake, this is applicable to nearly all US and other small firms in the City. “SA” could easily be swapped out with “Kirkland & Ellis” or “Latham & Watkins” and it would make just as much sense.

The quality of analysis is also weaker in this paragraph. Firstly, the candidate asserts a general interest in corporate finance and acquisitions but does not tie this analysis back in with Sidley’s practice area strengths. It is never made clear how the candidate’s interest in corporate finance is relevant to their motivations for Sidley. In any case, this reasoning is generic and applicable to any other corporate/advisory role in the City. You will develop just as much expertise as an M&A advisor at PwC as you would in a position at Sidley. Secondly, the candidate’s analysis of the second point on small trainee intakes is weak. It is not self-explanatory that small trainee intakes lead to more responsibilities. As such, the candidate would have needed to analyse how Sidley’s team structure and training contract lends itself to earlier responsibilities, before explaining why these points are important to the candidate.

We are also sceptical of the quality of this candidate’s evidence here. First, your chosen modules at university can provide helpful background/context but they do not usually support a point on their own. This is because the content you study on a university course can often be quite far-removed from the work you will do in practice. As such, you should not rely on university courses as evidence. Secondly, the candidate’s evidence of “leading multiple societies whilst working a part-time job” is not convincing on its own. Nearly everyone juggles their studies with part-time work, societies and so on. This does not mean that they enjoy responsibility necessarily. You should always make sure that you back up your points with detailed, specific and high-quality supporting evidence.

Why are you motivated to pursue a career in a commercial law firm, in particular SPB? (200)

After attending an exclusive [redacted RG university] event with Squire Patton Boggs (SPB), I am applying to the firm for two reasons.

Feedback: There is nothing inherently harmful in writing a brief introductory paragraph like this. They can contextualise your interest in the firm to the recruiter, as well as providing structure and focus to the rest of your answer. The candidate achieves both of these points here. They provide brief insight into the event that triggered their interest in SPB, before stating that they have two reasons for wanting to join. This provides helpful background and adds structure to the candidate’s answer.

However, the candidate should have cut this out (in light of the very restrictive word count). The candidate uses 22/200 words on this paragraph, which takes up over a tenth of the word count. Given the tight word limits, the candidate should have cut out the introduction in favour of more meaningful analysis elsewhere. In word-restrictive questions like this, you must spend every word analysing and drilling down on your reasons for interest in SPG. You simply do not have the luxury of writing elaborate introductory paragraphs.

This kind of introduction would be better placed in a traditional cover letter, where you are generally constrained by page limits rather than specific word counts.

Firstly, I am impressed by the type and quality of work at the firm. SPB is highly regarded for mid-market M&A transactions, evidenced by its Tier 1 by The Legal 500 in this area. The broad range of specialisms are appealing, particularly as trainees are exposed to them through the six-seat training contract. This structure would give me the ability to experience a variety of work and ensure that I am able to make a well-informed decision regarding where to qualify.

Feedback: This is a fairly decent first paragraph. In particular, the candidate structures their answer sensibly using the PEEL structure (point, evidence, explanation, link). You should note how the candidate states their point from the outset, namely that they are interested in SPB’s work in mid-market M&A transactions. The candidate then substantiates this point with some further details about SPB’s rankings and range of specialisms. By stating this point outright, the candidate focuses their writing and makes it easier for the recruiter to follow their argument throughout.

However, this paragraph needs improvement in a few regards. First, the candidate’s point is insufficiently tailored to SPB. It does not differentiate SPB from other firms in the mid-market M&A/private equity space. The candidate gives passing mention to SPB’s ranking in this area, but does not go any further in explaining how SPB’s Legal 500 rankings make its M&A work uniquely interesting. SPB is also not the only firm occupying Tier 1 for mid-market transactions. This means that you could easily swap out “SPB” with another competitor firm, and this candidate’s writing would make just as much sense. You need to make tailored, well-researched points about the firm in your own writing. This will prove to the recruiter that you have seriously researched the firm, and so you have spent meaningful time thinking about whether you want to work there. 

Secondly, the candidate doesn’t offer a convincing explanation about why SPB’s structure/practice area strengths appeal to them. The candidate never explains what personally interests them about SPB’s mid-market M&A work. Since the candidate has deliberately mentioned the “mid-market” nature of SPB’s work, we would expect the candidate to explain why this specific aspect appeals to them. Similarly, the candidate asserts that SPB’s six-seat structure “gives them an ability to experience a variety of work” and make a “well-informed” qualification decision, but these are not convincing explanations. You can expect a variety of work and good qualification options at traditional four-seat firms – these are not unique features of SPB’s six-seat structure. As such, the candidate needed to go further in explaining what makes this structure unique and why it interests them.

As a minor criticism, the candidate’s point is a little unfocused. The candidate leads in with a point about SPB’s M&A work. Then, the candidate shoehorns in a reference to SPB’s “six-seat training contract”, but never explains why this interests them. This is also disconnected from the candidate’s initial point about SPB’s M&A work. As a rule, you should stick to just one point per paragraph. Each paragraph should deal with the firm’s work and training structure separately. In turn, this will focus your writing and make it easier for the recruiter to follow your arguments.

Secondly, after attending the SPB virtual event, I was impressed by the culture of the firm. Francesca Puttock, a trainee in the Birmingham office, spoke highly of the supportive and non-hierarchical environment at the firm, demonstrated through her high levels of responsibility during her first seat. The combination of the firm’s culture and location appeals to me as I hope to work on projects that I can see the tangible results for. In particular, I am excited to work with local clients such as Aston Villa Football Club and bring my nuanced understanding of Birmingham culture.

Feedback: This paragraph is a slight improvement on the previous. In particular, the candidate does well to substantiate their point by mentioning an event they attended with SPB. Not only does this provide substantiating evidence for the candidate’s initial point about SPB’s culture, but it also evidences the candidate’s personal interest in SPB. By mentioning the SPB event, the candidate demonstrates that they have a sustained and genuine interest in the firm. They have gone beyond simply carrying out basic research into the firm’s rankings and graduate recruitment brochures. Instead, the candidate evidences their interest in SPB’s culture with an objective account of the event they attended. This helps demonstrate that they have an authentic interest in SPB.

Regardless, this paragraph suffers from a couple of key weaknesses. First, the candidate’s point about SPB’s culture is not particularly convincing or well-tailored. Though the candidate asserts that SPB has a “supportive” and “non-hierarchical” structure, they do not go much further in explaining what they mean by this. Many firms will claim to offer “supportive” and “non-hierarchical” cultures in the same way – you’d struggle to find any firm that markets itself as unsupportive! As such, the candidate’s central point is simply not convincing enough. This is a common issue for candidates who rely on the firm’s culture as a central point. You simply cannot know what the culture is like until you have actually worked there. As such, we advise candidates to avoid discussing culture altogether. You should instead focus on objective features that can be substantiated by hard evidence (such as practice area strengths and training contract features).

Secondly, the latter half of this paragraph is quite weak. The candidate begins by name-dropping Aston Villa as a notable client. However, the candidate never explains why they have singled out Aston Villa as a client nor why that interests them personally. Bizarrely, the candidate also asserts that they have a “nuanced understanding of Birmingham culture”. The candidate never explains what they mean by this, nor why that ultimately relates back to their interest in SPB. In your own writing, you need to avoid making unsubstantiated points. Every assertion must be backed by strong, PEEL-structured analysis.

Describe how you came to the decision to apply to Stephenson Harwood (250)

Stephenson Harwood attracted me due to its market-resilience, niche work, international reach and culture. Despite global uncertainty, the firm continues to work on market-leading matters. It advised on the largest fund IPO in 2020 for Home REIT, who will invest in homeless accommodation in the UK. Continually, it advised Oxford Biomedica on a Covid-19 vaccine deal with AstraZeneca. These cases also signify that the firm completes work with a social impact.

Feedback: The candidate demonstrates the depth of research we would expect in a successful application to Stephenson Harwood. You should note how the candidate describes in detail two specific deals that Stephenson Harwood worked on recently, before commenting briefly on why these deals might interest the candidate. When answering motivational “why our firm?” questions, you should always expand on your points with specific, detailed examples which demonstrate that you have invested meaningful time in researching the firm. The candidate also does well to address the question from the get-go. This focuses the candidate’s writing on the specific question being asked.

This paragraph’s flaw is that it does not fully answer the question. The question asks you why you are applying to Stephenson Harwood. Although the candidate demonstrates that they have conducted high-quality research into the firm, they never explain why these examples appeal to them. We are told that these cases are “niche” with a “high social impact”, but we are given no insight into why these points interest the candidate. To improve, the candidate should have explained why these points interest them and backed up their explanations with specific personal examples.

Unusually, the candidate also begins their answer with a summary of all the points they intend to address during their answer. This means the candidate’s writing is somewhat unclear. The candidate seems to be addressing the “market resilience” point during their first paragraph, but the candidate never explains (1) how these examples demonstrate Stephenson Harwood’s resilience nor (2) why the candidate is personally interested in this point. To improve, the candidate should have clearly separated out the paragraphs so that they each address only one point. This would’ve improved the candidate’s structure and made it clear which paragraph is addressing what point.

To avoid these issues, we recommend following the PEEL/AL structure (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link) in answering motivational questions. You should begin by outlining a point about why the firm appeals to you. This point should demonstrate specific research that tailors your point to the firm. Then, you must explain why this point appeals to you personally. This explanation must be backed up with specific personal examples. Finally, you must tie your personal motivations back in with your overall point. This will provide structure to your answer and help the recruiter follow your reasoning.

In view of the tight word count here, we advise that you prioritise depth over breadth. You should offer no more than 2-3 specific and detailed reasons for your interest in Stephenson Harwood, which ideally focus on the firm’s work. It is also worth addressing the firm’s training if you have space.

In art law, the firm is ranked Tier 1. The firm’s high-profile clients such as Christie’s would produce high-quality, complex work, offering a welcomed intellectual challenge. Furthermore, the international nature of shipping law attracts me. The issues range from collisions to shipbuilding contracts, producing dynamic and varied work. Subsequently, the firm’s “Maritime Law Firm of the Year’ award at the 2019 Asian Legal Business Awards is greatly appealing. Both niches offer the opportunity to become a sector specialist alongside being a legal advisor. This duality is a key reason I want to enter the legal profession.

Feedback: The candidate again demonstrates a good level of research into Stephenson Harwood. You should note the high level of detail used by the candidate. We are given specific named clients, as well as a named and dated award that the firm has won. This is the level of detail you should aim for in your applications.

This paragraph suffers the same flaw as the previous. Namely, the candidate tells Stephenson Harwood facts it already knows about itself but does not explain why this interests the candidate. The candidate asserts that they want to become a “sector specialist” and that this “duality” is a key motivation but offers no explanation as to why any of these points interest them. The candidate also offers no insight into why art law or maritime law appeals to them. As such, this paragraph is incomplete and does not fully address the question. In view of the limited word count, the paragraph should have focused on just one of these practice areas. The candidate should have then tied in their detailed research back in with their own motivations and provided personal examples to back this up. This would have guaranteed that the candidate answered the question in full.

Some of the candidate’s writing is also not quite tailored enough to Stephenson Harwood. Straight away, the candidate asserts an interest in the firm’s “high-profile clients” and “complex work”. These points are not unique to Stephenson Harwood – nearly all major City law firms will offer you high-profile clients and interesting complex work. As such, the candidate should have instead focused on a point unique to Stephenson Harwood (e.g., its strengths in art/cultural property law) and expanded on this in depth.

In addition to the firm’s presence at maritime hubs, it’s Asia-pacific focus interests me due to the region’s innovation. Subsequently, I am excited that the firm offers award-winning international secondments to locations such as Singapore.

Feedback: This paragraph does not contribute much to the candidate’s answer. Firstly, Stephenson Harwood is not the only global law firm with maritime strengths and a presence in Singapore. This could equally be applied to Stephenson Harwood’s direct competitors such as HFW and Clyde & Co. The candidate also offers no insight into why Stephenson Harwood’s international secondments interest them personally nor provides any specific personal examples in support of this point. The Singapore example does not itself contribute anything to the answer, since the candidate does not provide much insight into why they would want to spend time here.

In any case, we believe that candidates should generally avoid using international secondments as central points in their “why firm?” answers. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the sweeping majority of global law firms in the City now offer secondments to candidates (particularly to major capital market jurisdictions such as Singapore. As such, it will be difficult to tailor your point to Stephenson Harwood specifically. Secondly, international secondments are by no means guaranteed. They are incredibly competitive (particularly in Singapore) and will not be taken up by most trainees. As such, you risk casting doubt on your motivations by focusing on international secondments as a central point.

The candidate probably struggled with the word count by this point. As such, the candidate could have safely cut this paragraph out. This would have saved 35 valuable words, with which the candidate could have spent improving their previous paragraphs.

The candidate also makes some spelling/punctuation slip-ups here. Namely, “it’s” should be “its” and “Asia-pacific” should be capitalised as “Asia-Pacific”. Law firms will assess your spelling and punctuation throughout your application, so it is essential that your spelling/punctuation/grammar is perfect.

Additionally, the firm is progressive. During market-uncertainty, it developed a pricing tool to predict client fees. My interest in legal technology was catalysed at the 2019 Legal Innovators conference. Moreover, the firm has led community-driven CSR initiatives and in 2020, three out of six partner promotions were women.

Feedback: The candidate does introduce a specific personal example in this paragraph. Had the paragraph explained how they developed an interest in legal technology by attending this conference, then this paragraph would start to look reasonably good.

However, this paragraph again contributes little to the candidate’s answer. The candidate has tried to cram in multiple motivational points, but the word limit prevents them from offering any meaningful analysis on these points. We always advise depth over breadth in these answers. Realistically, you cannot cover every single reason for your interest in Stephenson Harwood within a 250-word answer.

We would also have advised this candidate to avoid flowery language such as “catalysed”. You must always write in plain, accessible and clear language when writing applications. This is because recruiters continually assess whether you can write in a way that business-minded commercial clients can understand quickly and easily. As such, you should avoid extravagant and novel-like language such as this.

The candidate also inappropriately uses a hyphen for “market uncertainty”.  While there’s no firm rule to help you decide which words are run together, hyphenated or left separate, it’s better to check a dictionary if you are unsure.  In this case, we would not include a hyphen here.  The candidate seems to struggle with this throughout their application, which is something that a critical reviewer may spot and penalise.

Describe how you came to the decision to apply to Stephenson Harwood? (Max 250 words)

SH’s expertise across services interests me. Advising Stanley Capital on acquiring a  global pharmacovigilance service provider impressed me greatly, highlighting SH’s  corporate prowess in catering to multinational conglomerates. My interest in this area  stems from a private equity masterclass with Ropes & Gray that delved into the  intricacies of creatively using incentives, frontrunning auctions, and working with  different teams. Forage experiences in M&A and IP further developed my interest in  negotiation, drafting, and due diligence, deepening my understanding of providing  commercially sound legal advice across services. Notably, I found striking parallels  between these and complex but exciting private matters. 

Feedback:This looks like a strong paragraph overall. First, the candidate adopts the PEEL/AL structure well. You should note how the candidate leads in with a concise point, which addresses the question from the outset. The recruiter immediately knows the candidate’s first (and likely strongest) reason for wanting to join SH. Then, the candidate substantiates their point with specific, detailed and well-tailored research into SH. Following this, the candidate introduces high-quality personal evidence for their interest in SH’s practice areas before explaining/analysing how that evidence developed their interest in the point. Finally, the candidate draws a reasonably good link back to their wider interest in SH. This results in a cogent paragraph that is decently argued overall.

Secondly, the candidate substantiates their point with high-quality research. You should note how the candidate goes beyond simply copying basic facts about SH from their graduate recruitment brochures. Instead, the candidate identifies a specific matter/deal of interest before explaining how that deal developed their interest in Stephenson Harwood. In turn, this achieves two objectives. It tailors the candidate’s writing specifically to SH, whilst also demonstrating that the candidate has invested serious time into researching the firm. You should aim for similar levels of specificity in your own writing. Wherever possible, you should base your arguments on specific statistics, numbers and examples that you have uncovered from thorough research into the firm.

However, this paragraph suffers from two faults. First, the candidate’s initial point is quite vague and generic. The candidate asserts an interest in SH’s “expertise across services”, but never truly explains what they mean by this nor how that makes SH a unique firm. The Stanley Capital example does not go far enough in explaining this point. This is because the candidate’s writing about the Stanley Capital case is similarly generic. They simply assert that it “highlights SH’s corporate prowess” without truly delving into the case and unpacking its unique features. In turn, this means that the candidate’s point is insufficiently tailored to SH. Many firms can rightly claim to have “expertise across services” – this is not a unique feature of SH. As such, the candidate should have gone much further in explaining how their initial point makes SH a unique firm.

Secondly, the candidate’s personal example/analysis is somewhat disconnected from the initial point. The candidate began by asserting an interest in SH’s “expertise across services”. Then, the candidate cites an example from a private equity masterclass before explaining how that developed their interest in commercial law generally. The issue is that the candidate’s Ropes & Gray example does not truly explain their interest in SH’s practice area strengths. The candidate asserts an interest in SH’s corporate team (based on the Stanley Capital matter), but their subsequent analysis does not truly explain their interest in this point. In your own writing, you need to ensure that every example develops your original point. You should make sure that you argue your points consistently throughout your answer.

Shadowing a Barrister sparked my private law interest. I worked on property  demolition matters for individuals and employment issues involving benefit denial in  support of unions. The experience was intellectually rewarding as I thoroughly  enjoyed the diversity of work and varied clientele which required constantly adapting  my knowledge base and communication style. It solidified my eagerness to pursue a

versatile career encompassing private and corporate matters, avoiding early  pigeonholing. SH offers this range of leading commercial services with unique  private practices in art and cultural property.

Feedback: The candidate explains their interest in private law well. The candidate does so by deploying a high-quality and relevant personal example from their work experience, before highlighting specific cases they worked on and explaining why those cases interested them. You should particularly note the quality of the example/evidence used by the candidate. The candidate identifies a relevant example from their time shadowing a barrister, before unpacking some of the specific matters and cases they worked on. In turn, this demonstrates that the candidate has a sustained and genuine interest in private law that complements SH well. If you have any kind of legal work experience, you should rely on it as your go-to personal evidence. These experiences go a long way in explaining your interest in both commercial law and your specific chosen firm.

That said, this paragraph does not truly answer the question. The question asks you specifically about your reasons for applying to Stephenson Harwood. However, the candidate only addresses the question briefly at the end of the paragraph. Instead, the candidate spends much of this paragraph explaining their general interest in private law. This leaves the recruiter questioning (1) whether the candidate has considered the question carefully enough and (2) whether the candidate truly wants to join SH. To avoid this issue, you should address the wording of the question directly and from the outset. You should lead in with blunt and explicit points, with wording along the lines of “Firstly, I am applying to Stephenson Harwood because…”. This will focus your writing and make it absolutely clear that you have understood the question.

Another issue is that the candidate’s point is not sufficiently tailored towards SH. Though SH certainly has strengths in private law, these are not unique features of SH. Many other firms in the City can also claim to have strengths in private client work (such as Macfarlanes and Farrer & Co). The candidate does begin to tailor their point by picking up on SH’s strengths in “art and cultural property”, but they never explain (1) precisely what this means nor (2) why that specific feature appeals to them. As such, the candidate needed to drill down on the specific unique features of SH before explaining why that interests them.

Lastly, as an international student, I find SH's strategic international expansion highly  appealing. For instance, establishing an Indian office before regulation changes this  year that permit permanent practice for foreign lawyers, SH showcased its  commitment to positioning itself strategically in an emerging market. This indicates  opportunities at the firm to develop an international mindset early in my career and  gain exposure to cross-border work. 

Feedback: This paragraph slightly improves on the previous because (1) it focuses on the question and (2) it picks out a unique feature of SH. The candidate goes beyond simply asserting an interest in SH’s global offices or international expansion. Instead, the candidate picks out a specific unique feature of SH (namely that they established themselves in India BEFORE they loosened regulatory requirements). Then, the candidate explains their point and explains why it interests them. In turn, the candidate’s specific interest in SH becomes much clearer. By providing a well-tailored and researched point, the candidate convinces the recruiter that they have invested serious time and energy into SH before deciding to apply there.

However, the candidate’s personal examples and explanations are not particularly strong in this paragraph. First, the candidate asserts that they are interested in SH’s global strategy simply by virtue of the fact that they are an international student. This is not self-explanatory. The candidate instead should have explained (1) their unique personal experiences as an international student and (2) precisely how their interest in SH’s global strategy developed as a result.

Secondly, the candidate does not sufficiently explain how SH’s presence in India makes them unique nor why that personally appeals to them. The candidate makes only straightforward and basic comments about SH’s global strategy. For instance, the candidate asserts that SH has “showcased its commitment to positioning itself strategically in emerging markets” but does not go much further in explaining this point. Similarly, the candidate asserts that SH’s international strategy will give them an “international mindset” but never truly explains what they mean by this. In your own writing, you should not only analyse each point in full, but you should also explain why they personally appeal to you. This will convince the recruiter that you have a genuine and authentic interest in the firm, which is backed by high-quality personal experiences.

Describe how you came to the decision to apply to Stephenson Harwood? (250 Words)

- How did you research the firm?

 - What interest you about the firm?

- What do you think the firm can offer you?

 My attraction to Stephenson Harwood is based on:

1. The firm’s strong shipping sector. According to the Legal 500, Stephenson Harwood is ranked tier 2 in their shipping sector. The case of Mitsui [2017], piqued my interest in shipping law as it showed how complicated and challenging shipping law could be. This case took eight years before receiving a ruling. Additionally, the quirkiness of the field adds additional excitement as cases may involve actual pirates such as the aforementioned case. I want to qualify in shipping law, and Stephenson Harwood provides such an opportunity.

2. The firm’s friendly and ‘tight-knit’ culture. According to Legal Cheek, the firm has been ranked ‘A’ for both peer support and partner approachability, this statistic coupled with the firm’s small trainee intake suggests a supportive and inclusive culture at the firm. As the vice-captain of my university’s football team, I have developed essential communicative skills that will allow me to add and create better group support. Therefore, not only would I thrive at the firm, but I would also add value.

3. The firm’s training. Between the sophisticated work that the firm does and the small trainee intake, I would be expected to take on a significant amount of responsibility which would allow me to learn more. As the owner of a legal blog, manager for The Business Update (TBU), speaker for TBU and bi-monthly webinar host, I have learned effective work management skills that would allow me to thrive at Stephenson Harwood.

[Feedback: This is another well-structured answer.  While the candidate could improve the content of her answer, the fact that this application was successful demonstrates the edge that a great structure lends your application.

When talking about particular practice areas, you should take care to emphasise that you are open-minded about qualification.  It is a mistake to say that you want to qualify in a particular area.  Unless you have a postgraduate qualification in the field or extensive experience from prior employment, you cannot possibly know this until you have spent six months in the department as a trainee.  Moreover, law firms want their trainees to approach qualification with an open mind.  There is no guarantee that your chosen department will have vacancies or that you will even be able to do a seat in the department.  So it’s better to express an interest in something the firm is good at, but not to nail your colours to the mast.

You should focus your response on why a particular attribute appeals to you, rather than how you would add to the firm (like this candidate does in paragraphs two and three).  You have answered that elsewhere.  Instead, use the word count to evidence the research that you have done on the firm.  Be specific and focus on things unique to the firm that cannot be said about any other firm - it is hard to do but pays off when done well.  Otherwise generic firm “values” are somewhat interchangeable.]

Why have you applied to Taylor Vinters? (100)

I am drawn to Taylor Vinters’ work with innovators and entrepreneurs. I am particularly interested in the firm's work with start-up Congenica. Additionally, the firm emphasises early responsibility through its smaller trainee intake. I am keen to receive this, having taken on two demanding executive positions at university alongside receiving a first. Equally, I am intrigued by the idea that a training contract at Taylor Vinters would be split across offices (London and Cambridge) and that there is such a broad range of seats to choose from, as not many city law firms offer dispute resolution, IP and family law.

Feedback: The candidate starts well by substantiating their first reason with an example of the firm’s work with an ‘innovator’ (i.e. Congenica), but the reviewer is left wondering what specifically interested them about Congenica. The candidate also does not explain why having executive positions at university alongside their studies makes them ‘keen to receive early responsibility through [the firm’s] smaller trainee intake’. Whilst it may be implied that taking on additional responsibility at university makes them well suited for high responsibility as a trainee, this should be explicitly stated. Similarly, the candidate states a good point about Taylor Vinters’ training contract being unique in its offering, however, it isn’t explained why this interests them.

When you are writing your answer regarding firm motivation, ensure you present a logical, detailed analysis of your personalised evidence, in addition to explicitly linking such analysis back to your original point. It can be beneficial for your answers to follow the PEEL/PEAL structure: point, evidence, explain/analysis (of the evidence), link (to point and overall thrust of argument). This ensures that all your points are well substantiated, and the reader can clearly follow, and be persuaded by, your argument.

To do this effectively, it can be helpful to develop your answer through fewer points. For example, the candidate could have focused on two developed points, rather than three simplistic points. As a rule of thumb, if the reason that you advance for applying to a firm could equally apply to a competitor, it’s not sufficiently personal to the firm that you are applying to.  For example, lots of firms have small trainee intakes (which arguably indicates that the firm hasn’t successfully scaled its operations like larger and more successful commercial law firms…), but few firms have the same reputation for legal tech as Taylor Vintners through its partnership with ThoughtRiver and use of Orbital Witness in its real estate team.

Why have you chosen to apply to TLT? What differentiates TLT from our competitors? 250

TLT’s atmosphere, differentiates it, and attracts me. After engaging in ‘TLT live’, I understand the significance of the creative and driven culture which enables the firm and its employees to excel simultaneously. I admire the approach TLT takes to support its clients. By focusing on seven industry sectors, the firm prioritises understanding the markets that clients operate within. This strategy will increase the quality of TLT’s work, alongside instilling client confidence. As captain of the University of Bristol’s Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) Club, I encouraged a similar approach by motivating different arms of the committee to collaborate. Moreover, I appreciate TLT not being restricted to a ‘best friend network’, but alternatively developing international relationships with many foreign firms. This enables TLT to best meet each client’s specific needs.

TLT differentiates itself, and appeals to me, by specialising in both the financial services and digital sectors. Having worked on a media contract at McMillan Williams, alongside also working as an editor at Jits Magazine, I appreciate problems posed by digital media from both commercial and legal perspectives. Moreover, I have developed an interest in financial law while undertaking work experience at the Royal Bank of Canada and an internship in the Finance department at Eversheds Sutherland. At TLT, I could pursue my interest in supporting both of these sectors from within prominent legal teams.

Finally, TLT’s professional development initiatives differentiate the firm. My ambition to hit the ground running aligns with TLT’s approach of creating an in-depth induction and personal development plans.

[Feedback: The candidate answers the questions posed through a combination of research, personal experience and by considering an alignment of values. He shows off research by referencing ‘TLT live’, the seven industry factor focus, ‘best friend network’, financial services/digital specialisms and professional development - a lot for one question! The best friends network is a particularly good point as well. Since the other questions do not let the candidate go into his work experience, he does a nice job of getting in his most impressive experiences in this paragraph. From a writing perspective the application overuses commas in a few places (e.g. opening sentence) but is decent.

The answer jumps from topic to topic a bit too quickly. It performs a perfunctory analysis of each item but lacks greater detail. This comes across both in how he lists off TLT accolades to also how he weaves in his own personal experiences. Normally, slipping in your accolade is wise to do, but it feels a little overdone here. It would be better to explore the Royal Bank of Canada and Eversheds examples specifically. It could also have been helpful to include awards that TLT has won.]

Why are you applying to WFW? (250 words)

WFW’s sector based strategy greatly appeals to me. With clients increasingly demanding services that are more for less, having astute commercial awareness of the sector they are operating in, I believe, is crucial. By working alongside industry-experts, I, too, will develop the skills and knowledge to provide leading commercial and legal advice to clients. I am also drawn by WFW’s energy groups extensive work on green bonds for longstanding clients such as AMP Capital and ADIF-Alta Velocidad. This demonstrates the exciting opportunities offered to work on important international developments.

[Feedback: Like the previous question, almost every application process will involve asking you some kind of ‘why do you want to work for [this firm]?’ question. Therefore, you must understand how to answer this question.

We would advise you to focus on three key areas: the firm’s work, training and culture (in that order of priority). In this paragraph, the candidate is focusing on the firm’s work.

The candidate has done well in picking out a feature of the firm’s work, namely, their sector-based approach. They have explained why that approach is beneficial for the firm and, more crucially, why that feature appeals to them. The candidate goes on to give a few more specific examples of the firm’s work by way of naming some clients before concluding. Overall, the candidate has made a decent attempt at answering the question. Of particular note should be the clarity of the candidate’s answer: it is easy to follow and has a simple, understandable structure.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have fleshed out their analysis and provided some additional detail. First, you should be wary of pulling out broad, generic points. Many firms employ a sector-based approach (for example, Taylor Wessing, Osborne Clarke, and CMS). Hence, it is hard to produce a specific, strong answer when starting off with such a point.

Nevertheless, second, the candidate could have been more specific when describing WFW’s expertise and what the candidate would gain from it. Many firms will proclaim to have ‘industry-experts’. Therefore, the candidate needed to have explained what exactly sets WFW apart in this regard and how they would benefit from working with such experts (for example, does WFW offer unique seminars to trainees, or other such programmes, that experienced solicitors run).

Third and finally, the candidate should have related their answer back to themselves. You should remember that the question asks why you want to work for WFW. Therefore, you should ensure that you make your response personal. For example, the candidate should have explained why they personally are interested in WFW’s energy sector by citing a personal experience. Law firm recruiters are aware that candidates may share reasons for the firm and the career appealing to them. However, they want to see evidence that those reasons are real and why they appeal to you, namely, the unique candidate who wrote the application form.]

I am especially interested in joining a firm that shares my global mindset - this is evidenced at WFW through its guaranteed international secondment. I experienced the benefits of an international network in developing my adaptability skills as an exchange student in [redacted Asian city] and an intern in Nepal. Similarly, the opportunities to collaborate with colleagues from different jurisdictions and deepen my understanding of the global market will ensure I develop the knowledge to thrive in the current globalised world.

[Feedback: This paragraph, although it does not explicitly cite this area, concerns the firm’s training (specifically, its guaranteed secondment as part of its training contract. The candidate does well to highlight this feature of the firm. Few firms offer a guaranteed international secondment, such as White & Case. Hence, this feature is relatively unique and deserves discussion. However, you should be aware that many candidates will bring this up; therefore, you should ensure your following analysis is watertight to ensure your answer stands above the rest.

The candidate should also be commended for linking their point back to themselves. They mention their own experiences and attempt to explain why an international secondment is important to them.

However, to improve this answer, the candidate should have explained in greater detail what benefits they gained from ‘an international network’. You should avoid making generic statements that a certain experience developed or improved certain skills. Try to show, rather than tell, the recruiter what you mean. By leading with an illustrative example, you simultaneously claim that you wished to make and evidence it. This is far more effective than simply making a claim and hoping that the recruiter believes you or finds it persuasive.

The candidate could have employed more robust reasoning concerning their last sentence. The candidate ends by making a sweeping, vague statement about the world. The candidate could have instead used the word count to explain how they would use the secondment by mentioning where they would go, why they would go there and what (in the form of skills or experience) they would hope to bring back to the London office. You must remember to use the word count to its most effective ends: you must show instead of telling, and you should avoid platitudes or vague statements. Everything you write must further your arguments as you only have 250 words at your disposal.]

WFW stands out to me as a firm where my career development will be best achieved. Its six seat training, instead of the conventional four, will offer me exposure to a range of practices, thus allowing me to flexibly tailor my training to my interests. Additionally, initiatives such as the unique business skills programme and practice-specific training before each seat will allow me to receive an ongoing training. This shows each trainee is valued and supported throughout their career at WFW.

[Feedback: The candidate also uses this paragraph to discuss the firm’s training. This paragraph stands out for its employment of firm-specific evidence and examples. Of particular note is the candidate’s reference to the unique seat structure of the firm and the firm’s unique initiatives. These pieces of evidence are excellent, and you should look to refer to these kinds of traits when you answer a ‘why this firm?’ question.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have further developed their analysis. Unfortunately, the word count somewhat limits the amount the candidate can write. However, should the above comments be adopted, the candidate would likely have some additional space to dedicate to fleshing out this answer.

The candidate could have explained what interests they have and how, subsequently, they would use the unique seat structure to their advantage. Similarly, the candidate could have described how they would involve themselves with, and make the best use of, the various ‘initiatives’ they cited in their answer.]

Why are you applying to WFW? (250)

WFW stands out for its very focused sector-based approach. Assisting clients with commercial due diligence in M&A transactions at XXX, I have seen the importance of understanding the client's industry to add value. Compared to other city law firms, training at WFW would allow me to become a true expert in the energy and transport industries and learn how to apply this deep sector knowledge to tailor legal advice.

Feedback: The candidate structures this paragraph reasonably well by following the PEEL structure (point, evidence, explanation, link). They begin by stating a tailored motivational point to WFW from the outset, namely its sector-focused strategy. Then, the candidate weaves in a specific personal example from their M&A due diligence work to help them justify their interest in WFW’s sector-specific approach. Finally, the candidate develops their point by tailoring it to WFW and explaining what specifically interests them about the firm. We also like how the candidate expressly compares WFW to other firms. This demonstrates to the recruiter that the candidate has seriously weighed up their interest in WFW against the offerings of its competitors. 

That said, this paragraph needs some key points for improvement:

1. The candidate’s central point is not specific enough to WFW. They assert an interest in WFW’s “sector-specific approach” without drilling down on (1) what they mean by this nor (2) why that makes WFW uniquely appealing to them. Similarly, the candidate asserts an interest in WFW’s “energy and transport industries” without ever expanding on what makes WFW’s work unique. The issue is that WFW is not the only firm with these strengths. All firms will have a “sector-specific” approach of some kind, whilst many other firms will claim strengths in transport/shipping and energy. In your own writing, you need to provide detailed research explaining what you think makes your chosen firm relevant.

2. The candidate’s personal evidence is not well-linked to their interest in WFW’s sectors. The candidate makes a simplistic assertion that they became interested in “adding value to a client’s industry” through their M&A experience. Not only is this reasoning not specific to commercial law (as it can be applied to other business advisory careers), but it also does nothing to explain the candidate’s interest in energy/transport. In your writing, you should make sure you tie your experiences in closely with your chosen firm.

3. The candidate never explains why WFW’s sectors appeal to them. They assert that they want to become a “true expert” in these fields, but it is never explained why the candidate is interested in energy/transport as opposed to any other sector. This means the recruiter is left questioning whether the candidate has seriously researched these sectors.

As a rule, your reasoning is not specific enough to the firm if its name can easily be swapped out with a direct competitor’s name. For instance, WFW’s strengths in “energy and transport” could just as easily be applied to Clyde & Co or HFW. As such, the candidate’s reasoning is not precise enough.

Having worked at a leading commercial chambers focused on maritime law, I am drawn to the firm's market-leading practice in this area. I am fascinated by maritime law's history of setting precedents in contract law and know that WFW would allow me to work on some of the most complex and interesting cases. For example, the firm advised Citibank N.A. and HSBC Bank on two innovative blended finance arrangements for Seaspan.

Feedback: Again, the candidate makes a fair effort to tailor their reasoning to WFW. The candidate leads in with a personalised example evidencing their interest in maritime law. Then, the candidate explains what interests them about maritime law and why it does so. Finally, the candidate develops their point by introducing specific examples of cases/deals that WFW has worked on. This demonstrates some commitment from the candidate. They have evidently conducted some wider reading around WFW and so have a sustained interest in it. In your own writing, you should develop your points with specific and detailed research about the firm’s practice area strengths. Not only should you base your analysis on specific deals/matters the firm has worked on, but you should drill down into the firm by going beyond its graduate recruitment materials. If you base your research on the firm’s financial performance metrics, annual reports and online materials, then you will develop well-tailored motivational points evidencing that you have researched the firm thoroughly.

However, the paragraph suffers from similar weaknesses to the previous:

1. The candidate’s still does not go far enough in tailoring their writing to WFW. The candidate makes generic subjective statements about WFW (such as that it is “market-leading” and works on “complex and interesting cases”), but they never truly explain how this makes WFW unique. It isn’t enough simply to name-drop deals/cases. Many City law firms will be working on complex deals for prominent clients like HSBC and Citibank – this isn’t a unique feature to WFW. If you are going to mention cases, then you need to analyse them before tying said cases back in with your own motivations.

2. The candidate’s personal example is not closely connected enough to their motivational point. The candidate asserts an interest in WFW’s shipping practice, but does not explain how their work in a maritime-focused chambers relates to that. Since the candidate has mentioned an experience at a maritime law chambers, they would need to explain precisely how this ties in with the commercial solicitor route at WFW.

I particularly enjoyed working on cross-border deals at XXX and am attracted by the firm's global presence. I am excited that the firms' sectors are international in nature, ensuring access to cross-border work. WFW is also unique in guaranteeing trainees an international secondment.

Feedback: The candidate now begins to gear their writing towards WFW’s training contract features. In particular, they focus on the objective features of WFW’s training contract. They begin by pointing out WFW’s guaranteed international secondments, before later moving on to WFW’s six-seat structure. This is a sensible approach. We recommend that you approach “why firm?” questions by focusing on (1) the firm’s practice areas/work and (2) the firm’s training contract features, with slightly greater weighting towards the firm’s work.

However, this is a weaker paragraph than the previous ones. As with the previous paragraphs, the candidate should have gone further in tailoring their reasoning to WFW. The candidate asserts that they are interested in WFW’s “guaranteed international secondments”. The issue is that WFW is not the only firm that guarantees this (with White & Case being another notorious example). Instead, the candidate should have considered the exact countries/jurisdictions that WFW guarantees secondments towards. WFW’s guaranteed secondments uniquely focus on countries with strong shipping/energy/aviation markets, so the candidate should have drilled down on these.

The candidate also does not sufficiently explain their interest in each point. They state that they “enjoyed working on cross-border deals”, but they never explained what interested them about these deals nor how that relates to WFW. Similarly, the candidate never explains their interest in guaranteed trainee secondments. To improve, the candidate should have explained (1) what interested them about their experience and (2) why they are interested in WFW as a result.

Having experienced M&A at XXX and contentious matters during my internships, I am drawn to WFW's six-seat training contract. This will enable me to make a more informed choice when I qualify. Reading testimonials from current trainees on the firm's website and Legal Cheek, I was impressed by the culture of giving trainees real responsibility early on. This would provide me with the best learning environment.

Feedback: This paragraph is a slight improvement on the previous. The candidate goes slightly further in tailoring their point, namely by picking out a unique feature of WFW’s training contract before throwing in testimonials they read from WFW’s graduate recruitment materials. This demonstrates that the candidate conducted some research before applying.

On top of the flaws discussed previously, this paragraph suffers from a messy structure. The candidate asserts an interest in two separate points, namely (1) WFW’s six-seat structure and (2) WFW’s “culture of giving early responsibility”. The candidate never fully justifies why either of these points interest them.

In your own writing, you should focus on just one point per paragraph. This means that you can construct a coherent, well-structured argument that is fully backed up by your personal experiences and examples.

Why WFW

Watson Farley & Williams’ unique training contract structure of six seats allows for greater diversity of training, something which appeals to me in ensuring I have a variety of experiences. The guarantee of an international secondment would give me the opportunity to use the Spanish legal skills I have developed on my year abroad at the Madrid office. The firm's international outlook to commercial law aligns with my studying of international law, an integrated network provides diverse career prospects.

Feedback:  The candidate adopts a sensible PEEL structure throughout this paragraph. They start with a concise and well-tailored point from the outset (namely that WFW has six seats). Then, the candidate provides some sensible explanation of this feature and why it ultimately appeals to them. Then, the candidate mentions some specific personal experience before ultimately tying this analysis back to their interest in commercial law/WFW. This results in a clearly-written paragraph that is generally easy to follow.

That said, the candidate’s writing is vague in places. With regards to the first point, the candidate simply asserts that it will give them a “variety of experiences” without any further explanation. This is simply not detailed enough. You would get a variety of experiences within most (if not all) commercial law training contracts, whether that is in a four-seat structure (the industry standard) or even an eight-seat one (e.g. at Freshfields). The candidate needs to be far more specific in explaining why WFW’s six-seat structure appeals to them and how it strikes the correct balance.

Similarly, the candidate asserts an interest in international secondments but offers little else. WFW is not the only firm to offer international secondments. In any case, it isn’t guaranteed that the candidate would be offered a secondment in a Spanish-speaking country. As such, the candidate’s writing needs to be far more specific and well-tailored than it currently is.

I have developed an interest in the aviation industry as it is constantly evolving, occurring on a multi-jurisdictional level and operating across practice areas. WFW’s transport focus is engaging, especially their innovative technology - including their new version of the “Global Aviation Resource Index” launching this year. The addition of data regarding repossession rights demonstrates this evolving nature, responding to the grounding of aircraft in Russia as a result of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The training contract including a compulsory seat in asset finance would allow me to pursue this interest further.

Feedback:  The candidate structures this paragraph well. It starts with a clear and well-tailored point that strikes directly at WFW’s unique strengths, namely in cross-jurisdictional asset/aviation finance. Then, the candidate makes a decent effort to tailor their point by highlighting WFW’s Global Aviation Resource Index as evidence. Then, the candidate ties the point back to a key distinguishing feature of WFW’s TC (namely its compulsory asset finance seat). This results in a reasonably well-tailored paragraph that demonstrates the candidate’s thinking in applying to WFW.

However, the candidate never explains their personal interest in asset/aviation finance in proper detail. The candidate asserts that they are interested in the aviation industry’s “constantly evolving” and “multi-jurisdictional practice area”. However, these features are not unique to aviation finance. You will be working on cross-border matters within nearly any corporate practice in the City – and these will all be “constantly evolving in the same sense. As such, the candidate needed to go further (i) in distinguishing WFW’s aviation practice and (ii) explaining how their personal interest in this kind of work developed.

WFW’s work in renewables is unparalleled, recently advising DIF Capital Partners on the financing of solar generation and battery storage assets. Considering a trend towards investing in renewable energy, there is a growing demand in financing these projects. Seeing this work further develop, with more complex structuring due to adverse market conditions, would be an interesting training prospect. The London office being powered through renewable electricity demonstrates this at a cultural level, something I appreciate having organised sustainability projects concerning solar energy.

Feedback: The candidate does well to explain their alignment with WFW’s renewable energy work. They go beyond simply mentioning WFW’s work with DIF Capital Partners in practice – they instead explain specifically what this work involved and why it appeals to them. Following this, the candidate offers thoughtful analysis of the overall market trend towards renewable energy investment (and how this might impact WFW’s London office specifically). This demonstrates that the candidate has invested careful thought into the firm before deciding to apply. Finally, the candidate draws a neat link back to their personal involvement in sustainability projects (which in turn reinforces their overall ‘fit’ with the firm’s direction).

As with the previous paragraph, the candidate needs to explain their personal interest in WFW’s energy practice in greater detail. The candidate mentions their involvement in sustainability projects involving energy, but they do not explain this any further. To improve, the candidate should have drilled down on (i) what their work in sustainability projects involved and (ii) how that developed their interest in energy within the commercial law context.

Please explain why you are applying to Willkie.

Having read International Banking and Financial Law at postgraduate level, I have a keen interest in banking and finance as a practice area. Consequently, my interest in Willkie is predicated on the firm's strength in financial services, particularly capital markets. Willkie often advises on some of the most impactful transactions within the national and international economy. Of particular interest was the firm's role in advising FIS on a multi tranche offering of $2.25 billion and $300 million, respectively. As the world's largest payments processor, FIS plays a crucial role in facilitating commerce globally. Through the digitisation of finance, FIS is facilitating the rapid and inexpensive movement of money globally. For emerging economies, this has stimulated significant economic growth. Through this deal, Willkie has played a critical role in facilitating economic growth. The opportunity to work on such impactful matters, is why I wish to complete my training at the firm.

[Feedback: This question is also commonly found on application forms. Once again, we would recommend adopting a PEEL structure for your paragraphs and sticking to two to three paragraphs. For this kind of answer, you should focus on the firm’s work, training, and culture (in descending order of priority). You should remember that the bulk of your training contract experience at the law firm will be related to the firm’s work and training. Therefore, these are the most important topic areas to cover and will be the points that will differentiate the firm from its competitors.

Whilst culture is a valid area of discussion, you should only discuss culture if you have had direct contact with the firm (via presentations, open days, dinners, and so on). If you do not have such experience, you will risk having your answer come across as unsubstantiated and vague.

In this section, the candidate focuses on the firm’s work. The candidate’s answer should be commended for its clear structure and specific detail. You should observe that the candidate leads with a clear point concerning what practice area they are interested in. Importantly, the practice area they have chosen is one of Willkie Farr & Gallagher’s main specialisms. Although you may be interested in more niche areas, we would recommend avoiding a discussion of them in your responses. The firm wants to recruit those who will eventually qualify into their strongest departments (as they are the ones that bring in the most work and revenue for the firm). If you are not interested in the firm’s main practice areas, you should reconsider whether the firm is a good fit for you.

The candidate then goes on to reference the ‘firm's strength in financial services, particularly capital markets’ and substantiates their remark by citing a deal that the firm worked on. This is excellent and should demonstrate how you can effectively reference a deal when you draft your answers. You should note how the candidate not only names the transaction but also includes specific information about it (such as the value of the offerings). There are multiple ways to evidence a firm’s strength in a particular area, but we would recommend including a reference to the firm’s Legal 500 rankings or awards, but then quickly homing in on a specific deal that the firm did. This will not only demonstrate your level of research but also allow you to showcase your commercial knowledge. In this instance, the candidate, by discussing and explaining the deal and its importance, is able to give the recruiter a glimpse of their commercial acumen.

The candidate then explains why the deal was of notable import before attempting to link their response back to the question at hand, namely, why they want to work at the firm.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have provided a stronger explanation and link in the final sentences of their response. The candidate ultimately concludes that FIS and the digitisation of finance ‘[have] stimulated significant economic growth’ for emerging economies, the firm has facilitated economic growth by working on this transaction, and the candidate wants to work at the firm because they want to work on similarly impactful deals.

At first blush, this appears to be a solid end to the answer. However, it could be improved with some added specificity. For instance, the candidate could have explained how, specifically, FIS or the digitisation of finance has promoted economic growth in emerging economies. You must remember to be explicit in your analysis. Although it seems easy to infer the right answer, there is no guarantee that the recruiter will do so. Cynical recruiters may even penalise candidates who make incomplete or unsubstantiated arguments. Therefore, it is essential that you walk the recruiter through your argument and avoid jumping to an easy conclusion.

The candidate’s link section could also be improved. Many law firms will provide the opportunity to work on ‘impactful matters’. Therefore, the candidate should have been more precise when they related their response back to the question. The candidate could have referred to other similar deals that the firm has done, Willkie Farr & Gallagher’s growing presence and mandate in London, or to certain hires to justify their desire to work at the firm. Although you must be specific in your answers, you should be wary of getting stuck on one track; in such a situation, your analysis may be strong but you risk your conclusion being too vague or myopic. If your link back to the question could apply to several major commercial law firms then you need to be more specific.]

Moreover, although Willkie has multiple offices globally, the London office is leanly structured. This means as both a trainee and associate, I will not be siloed into a niche area of banking law. Rather, I will benefit from the firm's quasi multi-specialist approach. This will not only make for a richer training experience but will ultimately make me a more well rounded legal professional.

[Feedback: In this paragraph, the candidate turns their attention to the firm’s training. the candidate does well to highlight the firm’s small London office and the breadth of opportunities that this presents to trainees at the firm. The candidate’s following analysis is sensible and demonstrates that they understand why such a breadth of experience is perhaps desirable.

Nevertheless, this section is substantially shorter than the preceding paragraph and, as such, is missing some necessary details. Crucially, the candidate needed to have given an example of what ‘the firm's quasi multi-specialist approach’ looks like in practice. The candidate should have spoken to lawyers at the firm to ask them how such an approach affects them on a day-to-day basis and how it has improved their skills. Furthermore, the candidate needed to have provided some mention of why the approach will lead to a ‘richer training experience’ and make them a well-rounded lawyer. Once again, you must be explicit in your argumentation and relate your answer back to yourself on a personal level. If your response applies to any candidate, it is too vague.

Finally, the candidate needed to proofread their work to avoid making typographical errors. In the last sentence, the candidate misses a hyphen when writing ‘well rounded’. Although this may appear like a minor error, recruiters are becoming less forgiving when it comes to these mistakes. With more candidates applying every cycle, recruiters need to be stricter when it comes to reviewing applications. Therefore, you should ensure that you use a spellchecker (such as Microsoft Word or Grammarly) and proofread your work before submission. You may even consider giving your answers to a family member or trusted friend to read over and check for any errors.]

Lastly, Willkie’s unique international strategy means that training at the London office will provide me with the opportunity to work with and learn from the multitude of local law firms Willkie utilises.

[Feedback: Much like the previous paragraph, this section is too short. Although the candidate does make some attempts to address the firm’s international strategy, they do not state what the strategy is or how it would make a difference to them in practice. The candidate writes that they would ‘learn from the multitude of local law firms Willkie utilises’ but does not elaborate on how they would do this or why this is of any benefit (compared with the firm having offices in the jurisdictions in question).

When you draft your answers, you need to ensure that you do not write paragraphs that are of significantly disproportionate sizes. If you do so, you risk some parts of your answer being underdeveloped. If you find that you have one paragraph this is very detailed and lengthy (as is the case in this answer), consider sticking to only two (PEEL) paragraphs total as depth is always preferable to breadth.

For example, if your answers have a 250-word limit, you may wish to write two paragraphs that range somewhere between 100-150 words each. The candidate’s first paragraph is 150 words, and, if they had combined the last two paragraphs (and focused on one point) they would have 100 words, which is more than enough space to formulate a well-structured, cogent, and engaging response.]

Why are you applying to Withers? (60 words max)

I am applying to Withers because it is a truly ‘full-service’ firm offering private client services in addition to corporate and commercial. This unique offering would allow me to explore all my interests during my training. The firm size and limited trainee intake also appeal to me as it facilitates a collaborative, collegiate culture ideal for early exposure and responsibility.

Feedback: The candidate’s first point is an improvement on their previous writing. This is because it is somewhat more developed and better-tailored than Withers. Not only does the candidate assert that Withers is full-service, but they then explain how it is uniquely full-service and what it specialises in. By mentioning Withers’ private client expertise, the candidate begins to differentiate Withers from other competitors in the London market. In turn, this provides a good platform on which the candidate can explain and develop their interest in this point at interview.

However, the candidate does not provide sufficient insight into their reason for being interest in Withers’ full-service offerings. They simply assert that they could “explore all interests” during their training, without ever explaining why Withers’ private client work appeals to them specifically. Despite the limited word count, we would expect to see some passing reference to the candidate’s interest in private client work. Despite the limited word count, you still need to develop and explain your points as fully as you can.

The candidate would also need to tailor their point much more closely to Withers. Currently, the candidate’s point is quite generic. Withers is not the only full-service firm with private client strengths. This point applies just as easily to Macfarlanes, Farrer & Co and nearly any other law firm with a reputable private client practice. As such, the candidate should have developed this point slightly further. They would definitely be expected to expand on this point during any following interviews.

To avoid these problems, the candidate could have cut out the second point about Withers’ “collaborative culture” and “limited trainee intake”. These points contribute little to the candidate’s answer, as they can be applied to nearly any firm in the City with a smaller trainee intake. You would also expect all firms to have a “collaborative culture” of some kind. As such, the candidate could have cut this out in favour of more meaningful detail elsewhere.

Given the extremely tight word count, we recommend identifying one point (and certainly no more than two) before developing it with as much detail as the word count allows.

Why are you applying to Withers (60 words max)

I am keen to explore where my interests lie and to gain a more comprehensive insight into how various aspects of matters fit together, which Withers, a full-service firm, provides. My passion for sports law aligns with the firm’s expertise. Moreover, going on secondment to the Milan office, where I can apply my Italian, is an opportunity I would value.

Feedback: This paragraph is of varied quality. The candidate does well to pick out Withers’ sports law practice as an area of interest. This is a practice area offered by very few City law firms, with even less firms providing sports law opportunities at trainee level. As such, the candidate demonstrates that they have put some careful thought into Withers before deciding to apply there.

However, the candidate’s other points are not sufficiently precise. First, Withers is not the only “full-service firm” in the City. Most City firms will have a full-service offering of some kind, save for a few that focus on specific areas of corporate/M&A work (such as private equity). Secondly, the candidate’s point about Milan is not sufficiently tailored. There are a number of international firms which also offer secondment opportunities in Italy. As such, the candidate needed to go further in explaining why these features make Withers unique. As a rule, your reasoning is not specific enough if you can easily swap out “Withers” with any of its competitor firms. You need to make sure that your reasons are as precise as possible.

We also believe that the candidate could have written far more concisely in this paragraph. Instead of getting straight to the point, the candidate spends the beginning of the answer writing about how they “want to explore where their interests lie” and how “various aspects of a matter fit together”. These are generic points that do not address why the candidate wants to apply for Withers. Instead, the candidate should have identified their reasons for applying to Withers from the outset. Then, they should have developed these points with as much specific detail and research as the word count allows.

Why are you applying to Withers?

I am applying to Withers because of my interest in HNW individuals, art, luxury assets and family offices, having worked with HNW individuals and luxury brands at a private wealth magazine and written articles about these topics. Moreover, Withers’ leading international private client practice and impressive client base appeal to me as a culturally aware individual with an international mindset.

Feedback: This applicant’s answer is a strong improvement on those provided by the previous paragraphs. First, the candidate writes concisely overall. They state their reason for applying to Withers from the outset, before (1) picking out a few features of HNW work that interest them and (2)  drawing out personal work experience examples that substantiate their interest in private wealth work. This point is also reasonably well-tailored to Withers. Withers’ private client practice is its main profit-driver, so it is crucial that you demonstrate an interest in this work from the outset. Secondly, the candidate does well to tie in their personal examples and experience (as far as is reasonably possible). The candidate draws upon their specific work with a private wealth magazine, which provides good evidence for their interest in private wealth work.

However, the candidate’s second sentence is weaker than the first. The candidate asserts that Withers has a “leading international private client practice” and an “impressive client base”, but this does not go far enough in differentiating Withers. There are several firms in the City with private client strengths, not just Withers. As such, the candidate would have needed to give some passing mention to the unique features of Withers’ private client work.

Why are you applying to Withers? (60 words) *

I collaborated with Withers’ US team on a trust restructuring matter. I was impressed by the team’s excellent client care, especially the guidance on dealing with aggrieved parties.

I enjoy the personal element of private client work, which Withers is renowned for. I believe Withers is an excellent match for my interests and experience in this line of work.

Feedback: One strength of this answer lies in the quality of evidence used by the candidate. They go beyond simply asserting an interest in Withers’ practice areas. Instead, they use a specific personal example from a time they worked directly with Withers on a matter. In turn, this goes a long way in demonstrating that the candidate has a sustained, long-term interest in Withers’s practice areas. Where possible, you should mention any open days/law fairs/other networking events that you have attended with Withers. This will allow the recruiter to infer that you have a sustained and well-developed interest in Withers, which is backed up by personal experience.

However, the candidate should have written their second point far more concisely. They assert that Withers is an “excellent match for my interests and experience”, but they never explain (1) what they mean by this nor (2) precisely how these experiences developed the candidate’s interest in Withers. As such, these elements of the candidate’s writing contribute little to their overall answer. Instead, the candidate should have examined specific features of Withers’ private client work. Then, we would expect the candidate to outline precisely why those features appeal to them specifically. This would give the candidate scope to develop their point further at the interview stage.

Why are you applying to Farrer & Co? (300 max)

I would like to develop my legal career at Farrer & Co because I believe that it could offer me exceptional training and opportunities across a vast network of expertise, amidst its supportive, interconnected culture.

Feedback:  Although this introductory paragraph certainly sounds good, it adds little to no value to the overall answer because it is couched in ambiguity. Several commercial law firms could conceivably be said to offer “exceptional training and opportunities across a vast network of expertise” and to have a “supportive, interconnected culture”. Given the allocated word limit, we recommend skipping grandiose introductions and diving straight into the particular reasons behind your application to Farrer & Co (e.g., the firm’s work, training, unique selling points, etc.).

I am attracted to the combination of Farrer's historical underpinnings with its progressive vision, culminating in an interesting mix of high quality work across its diverse practice areas and impressive client base. Farrer's distinctive six-seat system especially appeals to me as I would appreciate the chance to experience multiple departments throughout my training contract, subsequently developing an expertise in a legal area that I particularly enjoyed. I benefited from a broad selection of modules at university and gained a strong set of transferrable skills as a result, exploring bioethics and family law, alongside commercial units. Hence, I was interested to hear from trainee, Sophie Lucas, that the Farrer's training contract encourages a well-rounded team of lawyers, whereby transition to qualification is facilitated as trainees return to their qualifying department for their final seat. I am impressed that this comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to training continues throughout one's career at the firm, as groups of experts collaborate across practice areas to solve client problems.

Feedback:  Echoing the comment made in relation to the previous paragraph, the candidate could have omitted the first sentence of this paragraph because it is unnecessarily verbose and ambiguous; moreover, it is not directly relevant to the ensuing discussion of the training contract offered by Farrer & Co. Nonetheless, the aforementioned discussion is effective because the candidate correctly identifies one of the firm’s particularities in terms of the training contract it offers, they explain why it particularly appeals to them, shares a personal insight in support of that explanation, and cites their interaction with a firm representative to tie everything together. Cumulatively, the foregoing increases the credibility and authenticity of the candidate’s answer.

Furthermore, I admire the importance of partnership and teamwork to Farrer's strategy, both regarding clients and firm members. The prospect of learning from ambitious legal minds, working with solicitors of all levels through a culture of sharing knowledge, excites me greatly. I have benefitted from the intimate setting of my current position at Taylor Rose MW, interacting with more experienced paralegals and solicitors in my team, thereby enhancing my development. Therefore, I was pleased to learn how Farrer's small trainee intake offers early responsibility and client contact, and am convinced that a career at the firm is suited to me.

Feedback:  The candidate correctly identifies another one of Farrer & Co’s particularities in terms of the training contract it offers, namely the small size of its trainee intake, as well as its perks, which highlights their research into the firm as well as their reasonable understanding of the mechanics of working within a commercial law firm. To take their answer to the next level, the candidate could have led with the foregoing rather than “the importance of partnership and teamwork to Farrer’s strategy”; unlike the former, the latter is ambiguous and less impactful.

How did you find out about King & Spalding International LLP? 

I found out about King & Spalding International LLP (K&S) by searching Chambers & Partners and Legal500 rankings. As I have a specific interest in international arbitration, I wanted to start a training contract at a firm that ranked highly in this particular area. Having then conversed with Rebecca Babb, Alex Tivey and Catherine Munro, I became convinced training at K&S would be the perfect fit for me in terms of practice offering and training prospects.

Feedback: The aim of this first paragraph looks good, as the candidate paints a clear picture about how their interest in King & Spalding developed. You should note the level of specificity in the candidate’s research. The candidate goes beyond simply mentioning the firm’s brochure, graduate recruitment pages and other surface-level research materials. Instead, the candidate (1) demonstrates research into King & Spalding’s rankings/statistics and (2) introduces personal experiences with King & Spalding. The candidate mentions personal conversations with three members of the firm, which demonstrates that they have a sustained and authentic personal interest in the firm. Ideally, you should also attend networking events/open days with firms prior to applying. Not only will you gain helpful personal insight into your chosen firms, but they will also strengthen your applications by demonstrating that you have an authentic interest in each firm.

However, this paragraph lacks substance in some places. First, the candidate should have been more specific in describing King & Spalding’s “international arbitration” strengths. This is currently not well-tailored enough to King & Spalding. Many firms will also rank highly in disputes and international arbitration. Instead, the candidate should have picked out a specific and unique feature of King & Spalding’s international arbitration work that made them want to apply.

Secondly, the candidate offers no insight into what their conversations with each member of the firm actually involved. The candidate does give some passing mention to King & Spalding’s “practice offering and training prospects”, but never explains what they meant by this. In turn, it is not clear exactly how these conversations developed the candidate’s interest in the firm.