Imagine you are a first seat trainee at BCLP. Your supervisor has asked you to present to a client in a week’s time on a matter that you have been working on. You feel that you have gaps in your knowledge on the subject area and you are already busy with other matters; how would you react?
I would react positively since I find it stimulating to work under pressure. My experience in part-time work during my A-Levels and at university has taught me planning and proper time-management would ensure that I do not panic. Firstly, I would examine what the gaps in my knowledge are, and cross-reference with my initial instructions to ensure I have not missed anything. Secondly, I would recognise the need to implement primary and secondary solutions to fill the gaps in my knowledge and deliver my other tasks on time. The primary solution must concern ensuring I am not engulfed by being busy with other matters, a secondary solution may concern the efficiency of the platform I am using for research. Thirdly, I would prioritise tasks that are urgent and important, over tasks which are important and not urgent (primary solution). Later, I would implement potential secondary solutions, such as changing the way that I conduct my research by switching platforms to guarantee optimal efficiency. For example, during my time as [redacted] at the [redacted], I constantly switched between lexis, Westlaw and Eur-Lex since the differing interface/tools on each platform facilitated varying degrees of efficiency depending on the task at hand. Fourthly, I would weigh the consequences and costs of each solution to determine which combination allows me to fill the gaps in my knowledge and deliver despite being busy. Finally, if I had any final queries, I would ask for my supervisor’s advice and approval.
[Feedback: Situational questions are becoming more common in applications and interviews, so it’s important to answer them in a structured and cogent manner.
The first sentence is harmless but feels a little silly to an actual lawyer - if you have knowledge gaps we promise you won’t feel positive about it!
The second sentence sets the stage nicely and carries on from the first but could be drafted better (“My experience with part-time work during my A-Levels and at university has taught me that planning and proper time-management would ensure that I do not panic” or, even better, would be to use the active voice instead of passive voice). The first plan of attack is sensible (although “First” is better than “Firstly”) but the second is a little unclear: the “primary and secondary strategies” sounds like the candidate is preparing for a naval battle and not a presentation. And instead of listing out those strategies, the candidate could have saved words by diving right into those suggestions without the unnecessary foreshadowing.
The third suggestion neatly highlights the candidate’s experience with legal research, which law firms will be impressed by (although “lexis” should be capitalised like “Westlaw”) and is a reasonable approach of how to gain knowledge.
The fourth plan is also fine, although seems a little rigid. The candidate is right to include that he would ask for help as the final step to take. Law firms want to see that future trainees are not ashamed to ask for help when they need it, and asking your supervisor (or another trainee or junior associate) for help should be encouraged.]
In your first 3 months as a trainee at BCLP, who would you seek to build relationships with, and what strategies would you implement to ensure that these relationships are long lasting? - Max 500 words
- Firstly, I would want to build relationships with my trainee cohort, my immediate peers. Having a supportive environment as we work together is paramount. Commercial law is rigorous and competitive by nature of the challenges it deals with, and having a support system within my cohort ensures that everyone can find the space to bring out their best. During my time at [redacted university] I have found it enormously important to have supportive relations with my coursemates, as we have looked out for each other throughout the year. For example, we had organised study groups to discuss more complex legal concepts ahead of our exams, developing fuller understandings and building resilience. I believe you can learn a lot from your peers, with reciprocal support helping us reach our full potential. As a trainee, I would regularly catch up with my cohort in our spare time to discuss experiences and offer workload support to establish a genuine trusted network between us.
Feedback: This question is a spin on the classic situational judgement questions (SJT) that you sometimes see in training contract applications. In this question, BCLP expects you to demonstrate (1) your understanding of the expectations/roles of a first-seat trainee and (2) your general interpersonal/social skills. To a lesser extent, BCLP also want you to demonstrate some appreciation of the different hierarchies/roles that operate within law firms. You should aim to write three paragraphs explaining who you would prioritise as a first-seat trainee and why, in descending order of priority. We would also recommend including a short paragraph upfront to explain what you are going to say (e.g., “I would first seek to establish strong relationships with [group 1], then [group 2] and then [group 3]”). This answer-first approach makes it easy for the reader to follow your argument.
The candidate orders their answer in a logical and sensible manner. We agree with the candidate’s explanations and believe they are correct in prioritising their trainee cohort in the first instance. As a trainee solicitor, your fellow trainee solicitors will be the primary point of contact for support and guidance. You will spend most of your time socialising with and interacting with the rest of your trainee cohort. When it comes to the typical challenges you face as a trainee (such as an extremely busy workload or a task you have no previous experience with), you will be expected to rely on your fellow trainees as a first point-of-contact. At firm events, you will also be grouped with trainees and you will spend most of your time interacting with them. You will also spend most of your time socialising with trainees. As such, it’s crucial for you to establish good relations with your cohort from the outset. The candidate demonstrates a good grasp of this.
Our main criticism is that the candidate’s personal example is somewhat shoehorned-in. Though the candidate’s university example is explained decently and has some relevance, it does not completely answer the question. BCLP wants to know what your priorities would be in the first three months as a trainee solicitor. You need to demonstrate an appreciation for the challenges that new trainees face, before explaining exactly how you would build relationships to help you offset this challenge. The candidate therefore needs to tweak their example so that it is more relevant to the question. For example, had the candidate explained what they did at the beginning of university to help themselves settle in and study effectively (i.e. as a fresher), then their example would have clearer relevance to the question.
- Secondly, I would seek to build relationships with people at all levels in my immediate sector. Being a trainee, my colleagues would be my first points of insight in the team and how it functions. I would do this by scheduling frequent catch-ups with my team members and supervisors, noting feedback on what works well and further improving my approach, as well as offering my ideas. By completing my tasks to the best of my ability, I would increase my reliability. Building relationships with senior associates and partners to learn from their experience, share new ideas, and receive tasks better suited to my skill sets is another priority. Seeking a variety of perspectives, I believe, would allow me to learn more about the business and its needs, which in turn would let me develop my skills quicker, and become a better lawyer and colleague. I hope to curate strong and diverse professional relationships across each sector that I am in.
Feedback:The candidate does reasonably well in explaining how they would build relationships with other team members in the hierarchy. We particularly like the candidate’s methods of building relations with senior associates/partners (i.e. by completing good quality work). While you are likely to be invited to departmental events (e.g., periodic drinks events to socialise, monthly practice area updates, etc.), work itself is the main forum for building relationships with more senior colleagues. If you produce high-quality output relative to your level of experience and are pleasant to interact with, you are likely to form a strong reputation and be well thought of in your department. The candidate demonstrates a decent grasp of this concept throughout.
However, this paragraph is weaker than the previous because it is unfocused. This issue is evident in the first few sentences. The candidate vaguely explains that they would “build relationships with people at all levels” because they would be “the first points of insight in the team”. It is not clear who the candidate is referring to, nor precisely how they would build these relationships. Instead, the candidate should have focused on a specific set of team members within the hierarchy (e.g. senior associates/partners). They would then explain precisely how they would build said relationships, as well as why they think it is important to do so in their first three months as a trainee.
- Further, to familiarise myself with colleagues throughout the firm, I would also join affinity networks such as Enable. As a previous [redacted EDI position] at my university, I care deeply about inclusivity and recently met members of the network at the AS Ability event. I would therefore seek to build relationships with colleagues with similar passions.
Feedback: This is a weak paragraph overall because it does not address the question. First, the candidate does not explain why this is particularly important for first-seat trainees to join these affinity networks. This means that the candidate’s writing does not demonstrate real appreciation for the role/position of new trainees. Furthermore, the candidate offers no insight into how they would develop relationships with other team members through these affinity networks. The university example is somewhat forced and does not truly explain either of these points.
In the interests of word count/space, the candidate might have been better off cutting out this paragraph in favour of more detail elsewhere.
- Finally, I would like to build relationships with any clients that I work with. From my experience in [redacted extracurricular activity] and working as a paralegal, I have learned that it is easier to achieve a favourable outcome when I have a thorough understanding of the position and perspectives of the side that I am representing. I believe I will gain a better understanding of the clients’ needs if I can establish a professional relationship keeping their interests in mind, delivering the best solution for them. Thoroughly researching the client’s business, its legal needs and challenges, open communication and consistent etiquette are key in establishing this relationship, proving the firm’s high standard and dedication. This builds long-term trust too.
Feedback: The candidate’s point and explanations are fairly good here. In particular, the candidate demonstrates why it is important for lawyers in general to develop strong relationships with clients. The candidate also offers a decent (if not basic) explanation about how they would achieve good relationships with clients.
However, the candidate should have improved this paragraph by gearing it directly to the question. Currently, it is unclear why first-seat trainees need to prioritise client relationships in their first three months. The candidate would instead need to apply their knowledge of the roles/responsibilities/expectations of new trainees, before making an argument about why they would prioritise client relationships in this position.
We’re not completely convinced that trainees need to prioritise client relationships in their first three months (beyond producing high-quality and timely work for them). You will have 21 months ahead of you after that time, during which you will spend 18 months in other seats working for completely different clients. That will make it difficult for you to impress clients and build long-lasting relationships as a first-seat trainee. Law firms are conservative places and unlikely to permit new trainees significant client contact until they are regarded as a safe pair of hands.
Instead, you should prioritise settling into the team and mastering the basics of your work as a trainee. Client relationships will follow from that once you are a junior associate. While it’s legitimate to write about clients if you can make a convincing argument for doing so, we would instead have split our answer into (1) trainees, (2) junior and mid-level associates and (3) senior associates and partners, which are distinct groups in our mind.
Imagine you are a trainee at BCLP and you have been working on a task for an associate in the Finance department. The associate is away and a partner in the department urgently wants a summary note of the research to send to a client, and has asked you to send it to them by tomorrow morning. How would you react? - Max 500 words
- In this situation, I would let the partner know that the associate is not in today, and briefly discuss the urgency of finalising the summary note given the time constraints. Whilst I always let urgent tasks take priority, finalising the summary note might be unrealistic in the client’s time frame. I would keep in mind how long the associate is away and why they are away: If it is for a few hours, it might be more realistic to finish the note within the time frame. If not, the deadline could need to be revisited. If the note urgently needs to be finalised after this conversation, I would let the partner know that I can complete the first draft based on my knowledge of the deal and the research that has already been completed. In any case, I would maintain open dialogue with the partner and associates on the team, ensuring that team members and stakeholders are kept informed.
Feedback: This is a classic situational judgement question. It is testing (1) whether you grasp the role/expectations of trainees, (2) whether you can manage competing demands and (3) whether you understand the expectations of trainees.
These questions can be difficult for candidates to answer, particularly for those with no prior paralegal experience. We always advise candidates to bear in mind (1) what a trainee solicitor does, (2) what a trainee’s typical responsibilities are, (3) what firms expect from trainees and (4) what a trainee solicitor’s position of authority includes. You should then spend every word describing exactly how you would approach this situation, rather than trying to show off your competencies and personal examples. The candidate does that reasonably well here. Instead of trying to describe all their competencies and shoehorn in personal examples (as many candidates do), the candidate gets straight to the point.
The candidate’s approach is fairly sensible. The candidate does particularly well in demonstrating their communication skills. Much of the candidate’s writing focuses on communication and managing expectations, which is impressive because it is something trainee solicitors need to do a lot. As a trainee, you will face competing work demands and deadlines from a variety of members across the firm. You will have to navigate this by communicating your deadlines/capacity to people and making them aware of your existing commitments. The candidate demonstrates a good grasp of this concept. This helps them demonstrate the prerequisite communication and teamwork skills needed to be a trainee.
Regardless, there’s a few points for improvement here:
It is not the job of trainees to decide whether a client’s time frame is “unrealistic”. Partners will often set you unrealistic work deadlines in response to demanding requests from clients (who pay law firms a lot of money and expect their work to be prioritised). As a trainee, you need to accept these and work around them. As such, the candidate would have been better off just assuming that the summary note is urgent.
The candidate could have written more concisely here. They spend much of their time speculating about whether the task is urgent. Instead, they should get straight to the point. You should (1) accept the task and explain why you would prioritise it, before (2) explaining how you would produce a good summary note despite the associate being away. In this situation, you would want to either (1) speak to other associates/trainees for advice or (2) search for templates on the firm’s intranet (if nobody is available to guide you).
The candidate could have shown some appreciation for hierarchy in law firms. As a general rule, if a partner tells you something is urgent then it is urgent and needs to take priority over anything you’re doing for associates or other trainees. That said, it is helpful to flag to the partner that the associate is away because it gives them an opportunity to re-allocate the work too.
- To ensure that I have enough time to finish the summary note, I would move around any other tasks and meetings depending on urgency and availability, as we have to constantly prioritise tasks to ensure that everything gets done well and on time. To address this urgency, I would leverage my past experiences, specifically my experiences as Vice President of the [redacted university United Nations extracurricular experience]. Here, I frequently encountered situations that required re-prioritising tasks and effective decision-making. For example, I prepared a 3-hour training session for 40+ delegates within a tight 2-day deadline. Such experiences have honed my ability to work under pressure and my time-management abilities. I would then briefly step away from my desk to clear my head and potentially grab a cup of coffee allowing myself to approach the task with renewed energy.
Feedback: This paragraph is an improvement on the previous. The candidate now accepts that the summary note is urgent and explains how they would organise their time accordingly. This demonstrates that the candidate appreciates what is expected of them as a trainee, and that they have a basic grasp on how to organise their time.
We also think that the final sentence is a nice touch. It isn’t completely relevant to the question, but it shows how the candidate maintains their productivity and works to a high standard when under pressure. When you work at City law firms, you will be working long hours under intense pressure. If you can briefly touch upon some techniques you would use to handle this, then it can be a nice finishing touch to your answer. The candidate’s example (i.e. getting up for a walk and coffee break) is a very popular way for lawyers to maintain productivity.
Nonetheless, we would improve this answer in a couple of regards:
Again, the candidate should have demonstrated better understanding of their authority as a trainee. Trainees cannot just “move around meetings and tasks” just because they are busy. Instead, you would need to communicate with the associates/partners hosting said meetings or giving you said tasks. They will then decide whether your task/meeting can be pushed back. If you’re facing competing tasks as a trainee, it’s best to just communicate openly and let the partners/associates fight amongst themselves.
The KCL example feels a bit shoehorned in. It does not truly advance the candidate’s argument because it gives no insight into how the candidate prioritises their time. Instead, we would expect the candidate to explain how they decide on competing priorities.
- I would look over the client correspondence to remind myself of what exactly the client is asking for and to have this fresh in my mind. I would then look over the research which has already been completed to gain an understanding of what needs to be included in the summary note to ensure that I include the most relevant information, regulations, and cases. In this process, I would consult any internal resources and documents to guide my approach, as I want to take initiative on tasks. I would check my approach with another associate or a member of the team to ensure that I am on the right track and potentially confirm the format of the summary note with the partner, as any research and summaries should be tailored to the receiver, their needs, and their preferences. In this case, I would want to make sure that the summary note would be of use to the client. Next, I would draft the note and proofread it to avoid grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Lastly, I would send the summary note to the partner.
Feedback: We are now given insight into how the candidate would approach this task without the associate’s supervision. This is a strong answer overall. It ticks the right boxes in the following ways:
The candidate demonstrates common sense and initiative. They explain that they would consult any internal resources and documents first, before checking with another associate that their approach is correct. We think this is a good approach because it demonstrates the candidate’s initiative, as well as their mindfulness that associates are busy and cannot hold your hand. You would always need to check with associates that your approach is correct, but they will appreciate that you have taken the initiative.
The candidate writes concisely about the precise steps they would take to produce high-quality work. They explain that they would study client correspondence/research so far. This approach means the candidate has full background/context to the task, and so can produce a more effective note.
The candidate shows appreciation that partners each have different ways of working. As a trainee, you will find that an approach for one partner does not necessarily work for another. It’s important that you show awareness of this in your SJT answers.
As a minor point, the candidate should have touched upon how they would approach this situation if no associates/team members were available. Associates are generally extremely busy and will not always be available to help you with tasks. In that situation, you would need to check with the partner that you are using the correct template. You would then complete the task to the best of your abilities (using all internal resources available). You can then explain to the partner politely that you have not done this kind of task before, and so would appreciate it if the partner can send you the final draft. This will mean you can see any changes the partner made to your original work.
You are working on a query for a new client, which has to be responded to tomorrow morning. You were told it was important as Eversheds Sutherland want to impress them. However, you have a lot of work on and the query is taking you longer than you expected. You are now behind on your work for today. You also have emails from other people chasing you for work you have not yet started.
What would you do? As part of your answer, please also describe what personal strengths would you draw upon and what would you find energising in this situation?
During my work placement at [redacted national law firm] I was tasked with creating a conditions precedent checklist and conducting legal research for a client report, whilst attending an internal meeting in one morning. This lengthy to-do list required me to strategically schedule my day. Similarly, as a Trainee I know I will be tasked to complete high quality work in a short amount of time depending on its urgency. I find such a task challenging but energising because I like to engage with a variety of different work throughout the day. I would draw upon my strengths in organisation and attention to detail, commercial awareness, and interpersonal skills to accomplish this goal.
[Feedback: This question can be answered in a variety of different ways. In this instance, the STAR/CAR structure cannot be employed directly in your answer; however, some inspiration can be taken from it. In this paragraph, the candidate gives some overall context as to how they would approach the situation by discussing their previous legal work experience.
Furthermore, the candidate takes the time to outline what they would find energising about the situation and what personal strengths they would draw upon. Although the candidate has not gone into much depth in this opening paragraph, the expectation is that they would develop these points throughout their answer.
The only point of concern is that this paragraph does not make much headway in answering the bulk of the question, albeit it is a nice set-up. You should remember that whilst clever introductions can add flair to your answers, if you are breaching the word limit, you should cut the introduction and get straight into answering the question.]
Before beginning any task, I would compile the list of tasks that I was assigned for the day. I would identify what should be prioritised and consider the deadlines that must be met. I use this strategy for university, as it is easier to keep track of the work that must be completed. This task would be placed at the top of my to-do list as it has an urgent deadline for tomorrow morning. With a list in front of me, I am reminded on what I need to work on and focused on completing each task thoroughly. I am motivated by the satisfaction of producing quality work and proving myself an asset to the firm.
[Feedback: This is a classic answer; nonetheless, it is fairly effective. The candidate demonstrates their organisational skills by describing how they would prioritise different tasks. Naturally, the candidate is expected to complete the important piece of work by tomorrow, and so the candidate mentions that this would be their top priority, notwithstanding the other work that they must also complete.
Whilst this answer is straightforward, there are a few points of improvement. The first is to do with flair. This paragraph is a great example of an answer that is decent but could be improved with added flair. In essence, the candidate says that they will make a to-do list and this list will help them stay on track – the answer is simple, and it works, but it is not particularly unique or persuasive. The candidate could have looked into other, more specific ways of time management or organisation.
For example, the candidate could have said that they would ‘triage’ their work depending on two factors: the importance of the task and the closeness of the deadline. In terms of how they could triage their work, the candidate could have described colour-coding techniques or sorting the tasks in a table. These specific details add some flair to the answer and elevate it beyond a standard response that over half of all candidate’s applications will have. You should remember that this kind of comment only applies if you already have a decent answer – you must be confident with the fundamentals before you progress to adding flair.
The second point of improvement pertains to the last sentence of the paragraph. The candidate tags on the sentence, ‘I am motivated by the satisfaction of producing quality work and proving myself an asset to the firm’. This is not an untrue statement, but it does not fit well with the preceding paragraph. The candidate could have improved their answer by making their concluding sentence link more closely with the body of the paragraph. For example, the candidate could have written something to the effect of, ‘Although systematically working through an overburdened to-do list may seem overly challenging, I will draw my motivation and energy from the satisfaction of producing high-quality outcomes and the crucial contribution of my work to the wider team effort’.]
Whilst every piece of work assigned to me can be assumed to be important to the operation of the firm, this particular task is prioritised because Eversheds Sutherland wants to build a foundation of trust with a new client essential to any working relationship. An example of Eversheds Sutherland prioritising strong client relationships is through the delivery of legal services. Co-CEOs Mark Wasserman and Lee Ransons recent creation of the Global Innovation Team focuses on developing new ways to assist clients reach their business goals. This legal service demonstrates the firm's commitment to providing consistent services to assist developing their client relationships. I would uphold this commitment by ensuring the task is completed by the deadline.
[Feedback: This is an interesting paragraph that goes down a line of argumentation we would have otherwise ignored. The candidate focuses in on why completing the specific piece of work outlined in the question is important for the wider firm. The answer discusses why the firm wants to build strong client relationships and an example of how the firm has done so. The candidate concludes with the point that their commitment to helping the firm uphold said client relationships is why they would ensure that the task at hand was completed by its deadline.
This is a challenging paragraph to evaluate. On the one hand, the candidate goes down a different route that we imagine most other candidates would have neglected. The answer addresses the candidate’s motivation for sticking to a deadline and their wider knowledge of and commitment to Eversheds Sutherland.
On the other hand, this answer deviates substantially from the question that was asked. Although the answer does somewhat bear on the question, it only does so in the last sentence of the paragraph. The concern here is that the paragraph spends a lot of time showcasing knowledge and creating an argument that does not answer the three parts of the question, namely:
1. What would you do?
2. What personal strengths would you draw upon?
3. What would you find energising about the situation?
At best, this paragraph answers the first point by saying that they would complete the work by the deadline, which has already been very well implied in the preceding paragraph.
Consequently, we suggest that this paragraph could have been improved if it had stronger ties to the question. Weaving in knowledge about the firm is a way to demonstrate flair and motivation; however, you must ensure you answer the question directly. Subsequently, the candidate could have used this paragraph to go into greater depth about what they would find energising about the situation – this would ensure that they directly answer at least one aspect of the question, meaning the recruiter would immediately see why this paragraph is relevant.
Finally, be careful with regards to typographical errors: there is an accidental double-space in the section, ‘with a new client essential to any working relationship’.]
Once I have prioritised my tasks, I would tell those that are chasing me for work that I received an urgent task that must be completed first. Rushing through tasks for completion does not produce high quality work, thus I would be proactive and give them an estimated time they can expect the task to be completed. I would communicate with my team members to see if they are available to help with the workload if I believe I am unable to meet the deadlines. I would gather insight on how to more efficiently complete all tasks on time as I am always receptive to others suggestions. After communicating with my team members, I would focus on completing the task at hand and then move on to finishing tasks that have urgent deadlines. My commitment to assist the growth of the firm would allow me to deliver high-quality work, even within a narrow time frame.
[Feedback: Broadly speaking, the candidate has the right idea when constructing this paragraph. The candidate systematically works through why they would not rush through their tasks, how they would manage uncompleted tasks, and how they would call on the people around them for help.
The answer also benefits from some explicit mentions of competencies (or allusions to certain competencies), for example, ‘proactive’, ‘communicate’, ‘receptive’ and ‘commitment’. If you explicitly mention your competencies by weaving them into your answer as nouns or verbs, your answer’s quality is immediately improved as the recruiter is forced to acknowledge your skillset.
To improve this answer, the candidate could have gone into a little more detail about how they would achieve what they claim they would do. For example, the candidate states that they would tell his colleagues who were chasing them for work that they were busy with more a more pressing matter. Whilst, in a real-life situation, this would happen, this is not the only thing a trainee solicitor would be expected to do. The candidate should have properly explained how they would renegotiate their deadlines with their other colleagues. In certain circumstances, some colleagues will be uncompromising and will not accept an excuse or reason. Hence, the candidate could have mentioned that they would talk with their supervisor to receive advice on resolving any potential clashes.
Similarly, the candidate writes that they would call on their team members to see if they would be able to assist. However, the candidate does not address the crucial point that the work is, ultimately, their responsibility, and, therefore, if their teammates cannot help them, they must sacrifice their own personal time (namely, work later, and so on) to ensure that the work is done.
Hence, when writing your answers, you should reflect on what the role of a trainee consists of and how you would operate in a real working environment. Although it is easy to describe what you would do in the abstract, the best answers to these kinds of questions will detail the realities of the role and present solutions that would work in practice.
As a final comment, you must be wary of spelling and grammar mistakes, which, as mentioned in a previous comment, are detrimental to your answer. The candidate has missed the requisite apostrophe when writing ‘others’’ (‘I am always receptive to others suggestions’).]
You are working on a query for a new client, which has to be responded to tomorrow morning. You were told it was important as Eversheds Sutherland want to impress them. However, you have a lot of work on and the query is taking you longer than you expected. You are now behind on your work for today.
You also have emails from other people chasing you for work you have not yet started. What would you do? As part of your answer, please also describe what personal strengths would you draw upon and what would you find energising in this situation?
I find such challenges energising because not only am I aiming to impress the clients on behalf of Eversheds Sutherland, but as a trainee it is also an opportunity to impress my supervisor and the Firm generally. I have always strived to be an asset in any team-setting. This amount of work is likely to require me to work longer hours. Being able to exemplify my dedication and commitment to the Firm would only push me further in ensuring the work is done on-time and to the highest standard. In this instance, I would utilize my strengths in organization, commercial awareness, communication and a general commitment to excellence to rectify this situation.
Feedback: Despite duly mirroring the wording of the prompt, the candidate has chosen to structure their answer in a rather unintuitive manner by addressing the third and final part of the prompt first (i.e., “please also describe […] what you would find energising in this situation”). To ensure that your answer is as easy to follow as possible, we would recommend that you avoid following the structure chosen by the candidate in this case and, instead, address each part of the prompt in turn. Nonetheless, the candidate puts forward a reasonably solid line of argumentation in response to the third and final part of the prompt, outlining their thought process in a clear, logical manner and using emphatic language throughout. To make this answer more persuasive, the candidate could have avoided stating that they aim to impress Eversheds Sutherland and its clients because such phrasing may be perceived as artificial or disingenuous. Instead, they could have stated that their aim is to add value to the business of the firm and that of its clients by adhering to the highest of standards in terms of their work. On a different note, the candidate does well to list the personal strengths they would draw upon in response to the situation described in the prompt before discussing each of them in detail in the paragraphs below; this increases the readability of the answer and helps the reader follow along more easily.
If I have not already done so through a matter management system, the first step I would take in solving this problem would be to prioritize and organize all of my work in a minimum list. Having everything that I need to do in front of me helps me clearly evaluate the tasks to determine what requires urgency. This requires my knowledge of the client and general commercial awareness to determine what work must be given priority.
Feedback: The candidate correctly identifies the most sensible step to take in the kind of situation described in the prompt, i.e., organising and prioritising all of their tasks in terms of their urgency. Notably, the candidate explains how they would organise and prioritise their tasks, aptly referencing their knowledge of the client’s business as well as their commercial awareness. To take this answer to the next level, the candidate could have also referenced their knowledge of their own capacity to complete a given task within a given timeframe.
With the advent of alternative business structures, an influx of US firms, and mergers happening yearly, it has seldom been more competitive to operate a UK law firm. Attracting and retaining clients is essential to the survival of law firms. Eversheds Sutherland wants to make as great a first impression as they can on new clients. Therefore, it is likely that this query would be prioritized highly. Considering it is due tomorrow morning, I would endeavor to complete this query for that deadline even if it meant working on it all night. This would apply to any other work that I have determined to be of equal importance and urgency.
Feedback: The candidate argues that resolving the query for the new client would likely take precedence over other tasks in the kind of situation described by the prompt. What makes their argument particularly effective is the fact that it is well-constructed and well-substantiated. The candidate explains their thought process in a clear, logical manner, which allows the reader to follow their argument relatively easily and creates the impression of a confident writer. At the same time, the candidate illustrates their argument by referencing the challenges faced by law firms in attempting to maintain a competitive edge within the status quo, which highlights their commercial awareness and ability to think critically.
Another strength I would utilize would be my ability to communicate honestly with myself and others. This may involve asking for help and completing work as a team or explaining to those I am required to complete work for that I am behind schedule. Being honest with myself as to what I can complete allows me to be honest with others. In turn, this allows others to temper their expectations and make clear decisions as to the best way forward. It also allows for self-reflection, and I would ensure that I make a concerted effort to avoid such a bind by figuring out what I could have done better leading up to this scenario.
Feedback: The candidate correctly identifies another sensible step to take in the kind of situation described in the prompt, i.e., resorting to honest communication with your teammates. Being a team player does not only involve helping your teammates in times of need, but it also means that you are sufficiently self-aware to realise whether it is appropriate to ask your teammates for help in a situation of the kind described in the prompt. Moreover, being a team player also entails being honest with your teammates when you fall behind schedule because your task likely forms an integral part of a “spider-web” of tasks that ultimately tie the final product together; if you fail to complete your task in time, you will likely hinder one or more of your teammates from completing their task(s) on time, which will likely hinder the team from delivering the final project on time. The fact that the candidate implicitly acknowledges the foregoing suggests that they have a reasonable understanding of teamwork. Notably, the candidate also mentions the prospect of self-reflection with a view to avoiding “such a bind” in the future, which suggests that they are sufficiently mature and open-minded to assess their own efforts in a critical manner.
Once I have prioritized my work and have updated those I am to complete work for, my focus would be completing such work to the excellent standard that Eversheds Sutherland expects out of its trainees and lawyers. Rushing through work will not accomplish this but being mindful of what else I have to do is also important. Ultimately, my aim is to prove to Eversheds Sutherland that I am an invaluable asset to the team. Therefore, I am prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to accomplish this.
Feedback: The candidate identifies another sensible (and pivotal) step to take in the kind of situation described in the prompt, i.e., completing the work per se. The candidate does well to acknowledge the need to adhere to a high standard whilst completing their work, despite the pressurised nature of the situation described in the prompt. To take this answer to the next level, the candidate could have omitted the last two sentences and used the remainder of the word count to explain why their performance of their role as a trainee solicitor is significant in the kind of situation described in the prompt.
As a full service law firm we have expert teams who work together collectively as OneIM to achieve positive outcomes for our clients.
You are collaborating on an urgent project which is due to be completed in five days. You haven't worked with these colleagues before and everyone has different ideas on how the project should run. Conversations are getting quite heated.
How would you move this forward whilst ensuring everyone remains engaged and feels valued? (2000 characters)
The dynamic of a new team can often be challenging, especially when there is a looming deadline. I am flexible and able to adapt my role in teamwork situations depending on what is needed. In this situation, I would take the opportunity to lead people towards a conflict free solution.
[Feedback: Answering situational judgement questions in a written format is challenging as there is no definitive structure. However, we would recommend, depending on the word limit, finding two to three key actions you would take if presented with the situation in question. You can then form a PEE/AL analysis around these points to demonstrate (1) how your action would contribute to the success of the situation, and (2) how it shows off a particular competency.
This candidate has chosen to include a short introduction to the main body of their answer. In many answers, this can be a valid approach; the introduction gives the reader some context as to how the candidate will answer the question. However, in an answer that is limited to 200 words, be careful with spending 25% of the word count on a mere introduction. Ultimately, this candidate’s introduction merely reiterates the problem in the question, states the candidate’s competencies, and then gives a vague indication of the goal that the candidate wants to achieve.
Nevertheless, an introduction like this can still have merit. The candidate has the right idea when they listed their competencies that they plan to later mention in their answer. When writing a short introduction, such as this, consider concisely covering the following points:
1. The two to three actions you would take.
2. The competencies that you would draw upon.
This should be no more than two sentences long, thereby leaving you enough room to get straight into your answer.
As a final point of improvement, the candidate could have used slightly more concise language. For example, instead of writing ‘able to’, write ‘can’. Instead of writing ‘I would take the opportunity to’, write ‘I would’ or ‘I will’.]
Reminding my colleagues of the shared goals of the project is the most important first step. To do this I would talk to each team member privately, maintaining a non-confrontational attitude, in order to determine their individual ideas and concerns. I would then work with each person to develop a solution to their problems, encouraging them to meet halfway. I would attempt to translate these ideas to the other members of the group, taking care to recognise each contribution. Stressing the importance of compromise, I would ask for each to be evaluated and for members to decide which ideas should be implemented. Then I would help the team to delegate tasks in line with the individual strengths of my colleagues, to be completed independently. I would set a reasonable deadline for these tasks to be completed and schedule a meeting for feedback. At this meeting I would again check in on individuals to ensure they continue to be engaged in the project and feel their contributions are being recognised.
[Feedback: This answer is a great example of logical argumentation. Each sentence follows on from the preceding sentence advancing along the candidate’s chain of reasoning. You should note how the candidate explains not only the goal they want to achieve (for example, reminding their colleagues of the project’s shared goals) but also how they would achieve it. The latter point is what makes for a good answer – too many candidates make claims or arguments which are unsubstantiated or underdeveloped. It is easy to say that you would resolve a conflict, but it is much harder (yet, more crucial) to explain how you would do so.
Another great aspect of this answer is that it directly addresses the question. Always make sure that you read all aspects of the question. Here, the question directs your answer towards describing how you would make individuals feel engaged and valued. The candidate’s answer never sways from those points and, indeed, the candidate reiterates their goal in their final sentence of the paragraph. We think that, substantively, this is a very strong answer given the allotted word count.
We have nigh on no substantive improvement comments to make regarding this paragraph, which is a testament to its strength. However, the candidate could have improved their answer by paying more attention to their phraseology. The candidate often writes sentences without being clear what or who the subject of the sentence is. For example, in the following sentence, ‘Stressing the importance of compromise, I would ask for each to be evaluated and for members to decide which ideas should be implemented’ it is not clear what ‘each’ pertains to. Evidently, the candidate is referencing their previous sentence; however, this is not immediately clear. The recruiter will not spend time deciphering your answers, so ensure that your writing is as explicit and concise as it can be – if it is not, you risk the recruiter becoming tired of your work and rejecting it.
Another point of improvement concerns the candidate’s grammar. On the whole, given the complexity of the candidate’s sentence structures, there are fewer grammatical mistakes than we would expect. However, the candidate does make some errors. For example, there is a missing comma after the introductory ‘Then’ in the sentence beginning, ‘Then I would help the team’. The same “missing comma” mistake is made when the candidate writes ‘At this meeting’. Although these are minor mistakes, law firms have a very low tolerance when it comes to typographical errors, and spelling and grammar mistakes. There is an oversaturation of candidates, so some recruiters are using these mistakes as an excuse to discard an application immediately. Ensure that you proofread your work thoroughly before submission or give it to a trusted friend or family member to read to catch any mistakes that you would not otherwise not notice.
As a final point, although the candidate is relatively articulate, you should be wary of using complex sentence structures. Using long sentences with multiple clauses are a way of demonstrating written ability and flair; however, they can also serve as the ultimate downfall for overconfident, inarticulate, or sycophantic candidates. It is always a joy when we review applications with flair, but we would always advise to keep it simple. Ultimately, a recruiter’s job is to judge you – using flowery language or writing styles makes it more probable that you give the wrong impression to the recruiter or make more mistakes, or both.]
It is important for members of a team to support and take care of each other. I would take the time to check on each person and offer help to them where required. Recognising the contributions of each of my colleagues, I would make a point of sending thank you emails to individuals to let them know they are appreciated. I would also publicly support individuals' efforts during meetings. This willingness to collaborate and compromise, as well as play to each of the team members' individual strengths, would help the project to succeed.
[Feedback: Once again, this is a well-thought through and well-argued paragraph. The candidate leads with a clear point and then describes how they would ensure that they upheld that point. What is also impressive is that the candidate has also given thought to practical solutions, for example, sending thank you emails. Although this might seem basic, the candidate demonstrates their awareness of what it is actually like to work in a law firm. Furthermore, their example of sending thank you emails indicates a level of emotional maturity and experience beyond another candidate who would merely write that they would ‘thank’ their colleagues without explaining how.
Finally, as another superb point to highlight, this candidate has not lost sight of the project itself. The question, for the most part, focuses on the competencies of collaboration, negotiation, and dealing with difficult people. However, right at the start of the question, there is a sentence saying ‘…work together collectively as OneIM to achieve positive outcomes for our clients’. The success of the project must not be neglected in this answer – whilst it is all well and good to diffuse conflict, the team must also pull together to deliver. The candidate has realised that this point is within the scope of the question and, in their final sentence, they have funnelled their answer towards addressing it. Hence, this answer is impressive because it deals with the main thrust of the question, but also addresses the wider scenario and demonstrates real insight into how projects run in practice.]
You are a trainee solicitor, working in the office and it is 6.30pm. You have an important personal appointment at 7pm. You are updating a document ready for a client meeting which will take place at 10am the next day. As this is a new client it is important that the firm impresses them and accuracy is key. You are waiting on some information from a third party before you can finalise the document. You have also received several emails from other fee-earners in the department asking you to help them on some urgent tasks. Your supervisor is working from home. What do you do? (250)
Effective time management would be essential in this situation. I would start by contacting the third party, giving a gentle reminder that I still required some information. I would stress the deadline and ask when I could expect to hear back. I would also reply to the fee-earners, letting them know my current capacity and asking for further information on the tasks I could help with. With this information, I would be able to rank my tasks by urgency and assess if it was possible to assist all the fee earners. If not, I would reach out to other trainees and colleagues at the firm and ask if they had spare capacity.
Feedback: This is a classic situational judgement question asking you to analyse the situation and explain precisely what steps you would take in response. In these questions, your writing should focus purely on the situation presented to you. There is no need to shoehorn in references to your own experiences, as you would if you were writing a competency answer.
In that regard, it’s notable that the candidate gets straight to the point. They begin by stating precisely what skill they would need in this situation, before explaining exactly how they would apply that skill to the situation. Each and every sentence provides insight into how the candidate addresses this situation. In return, the recruiter is left convinced that the candidate has fully understood the question, has a thorough understanding of the demands that a career in commercial law can impose and can write concisely.
The candidate’s steps are sensible overall. It’s quite clear that the candidate has high-quality previous experience, which equips them with a thorough understanding of professional expectations. For instance, the candidate does not immediately jump towards cancelling their appointment and dropping everything to complete the task. This is the correct approach because we are not given any information about the nature of the personal appointment: it’s therefore correct to not assume that it is cancellable.
Instead, the candidate takes a measured and sensible approach. They gently follow up the third party, before communicating their capacity to fee earners and assessing their capacity accordingly. The candidate also demonstrates some team-working abilities by stating that they would reach out to other colleagues to see if anyone can help. This is a fairly sensible approach overall.
That said, the candidate still has some points for improvement:
The “important personal appointment at 7pm” point is a central part of the question. The candidate should have addressed this from the outset. Firms will generally be understanding/accommodating if you have evening plans. They will generally not ask you to cancel these outright or interfere with them barring exceptional circumstances (even less so if it’s an important appointment). Instead, you will be expected either (1) to communicate with your colleagues as soon as you become aware of these plans, (2) log back on after your appointment (if the work needs to be done on that night) or first thing the following morning and/or (3) work with your supervisor to find someone with capacity who can cover you in that time.
The candidate could have been clearer about how they would communicate with the other fee earners. You would generally want to explain your capacity and flag that you have an appointment at 7pm, before then gauging the exact deadlines on each task.
The candidate mentions that they would draft in help from other trainees. This is a proactive and pragmatic part of a potential solution. It means that the candidate can respond to the other fee-earners with a potential solution (i.e., the names of the other trainees who can potentially help), rather than a problem (i.e., stating that they cannot help because they do not have capacity). The candidate is right to not make this the sole solution that they suggest, which gives them a chance to talk about prioritisation too.
Preparing for the client meeting would likely be the first priority. If I could not reschedule my 7 pm appointment, I would complete as much of the document as possible without the additional information. I would send a copy to my supervisor, asking for any feedback on my work so far. Once completed, I would focus on any tasks sent by my colleagues that I could finish before 7 pm. After my appointment, I would hopefully have received the information and would finalise the document, incorporating the recommendations made by my supervisor. If I had not heard back from the third party, I would follow up again and inform a more senior colleague. I would spend the rest of the evening completing my other tasks, leaving the less urgent ones for the next day.
Feedback: The candidate now moves towards explaining exactly how they would prioritise their time and complete the tasks thoroughly. This is a sensible approach to follow. The candidate did well by dedicating their first paragraph towards time management/organisation, before spending this paragraph drilling down on how they would complete the task to a high standard. We also think that the candidate’s approach is sensible here. We particularly like that the candidate has focused on the situation in which they cannot reschedule their appointment. In turn, this helps the candidate demonstrate that they can manage expectations and work flexibly around personal matters in order to deliver to a good standard. We also like how the candidate covers different scenarios. We are given a full picture of how the candidate would react in multiple situations (i.e. whether the third party sent over the information or not). This results in a complete answer that fully addresses the question.
We think the candidate could nonetheless have improved in a few regards:
The candidate asserts that they would prioritise the client meeting, but they do not explain why they did so. This might seem obvious from the question, but you nonetheless need to explain why you have prioritised one task over another. In turn, this will give the recruiter a better understanding about how you organise your time.
For future reference, we would prioritise the client meeting because of the importance that is placed on client service in commercial law firms. Client service is considered paramount because it is a chance for the client to see the firm and lawyer in action. It helps reassure the client that they have made a good choice when selecting their adviser. If it’s a first meeting with said client, it’s even more crucial to come to the meeting well prepared because of the importance of making a strong, positive first impression.
The candidate does not sufficiently address how they would handle the additional work requests from other fee earners. They state that they would “focus on any tasks sent by my colleagues before 7pm”, but they do not explain how they would achieve this. We think the 6.30pm-7pm timeframe is extremely narrow, such that the candidate is unlikely to have sufficient time to do any of the tasks well after emailing his or her supervisor (10-15 minutes estimated time required). Instead, we would suggest completing these extra tasks after the appointment or early the following day if they cannot wait until normal working hours.