How could CMS use technology to help you further your legal career?

‘Innovation and Legal Tech at CMS’ evolved my perception of tech, realising its role  to empower, not replace, lawyers.

Feedback: There is nothing inherently harmful in having a brief introductory sentence like this. The candidate identifies a specific CMS innovation point from the outset, before briefly outlining their key learning takeaway from this event. This adds structure to the candidate’s answer. The recruiter immediately knows (1) what the candidate is going to argue and (2) precisely what they learned from their attendance at this event. We also agree with the candidate’s decision to base their answer on their personal experience with a CMS innovation/legal tech event. Where possible, you should proactively seek opportunities to attend events like these. They are usually free to attend and do not take up much time. If you can then mention these events in your application, you can persuade the recruiter that you have a sustained and authentic personal interest in the firm.

The candidate should have written this sentence more clearly and in the active voice, though. It is grammatically clunky and includes a lot of jarring comma breaks. The candidate should have instead written in the active voice, along the lines of “At ‘Innovation and Legal Tech at CMS’, I learned that legal technology would empower lawyers rather than replace them”. This makes the candidate’s writing more persuasive and easier to follow.

As a ghostwriter routinely conducting primary research, I valued collaboration tools.  Shared calendars streamlined interview coordination, while Notion enabled seamless  note-sharing. CMS is deeply committed to such collaborative efficiency by  thoughtfully integrating communication into tools. Exemplified by the Breach  Assistant App connecting users with lawyers efficiently and dedicated HighQ portals  enhancing tracking. Such tools will sharpen my organisational skills, support  navigating complex legal information, and refine my communication proficiency. 

Feedback: The candidate approaches this paragraph reasonably well. First, the candidate does well to address the personal element of the question from the outset. The question asks you to reflect on how you would personally use technology to advance your career at CMS. As such, the candidate does well to identify a personal experience before explaining how they made use of technology throughout it. The candidate also does well in identifying specific, named legal technology tools used by CMS. By highlighting named and specific tools (such as Breach and HighQ), the candidate demonstrates (1) a good understanding of the day-to-day work of modern commercial lawyers and (2) that they have conducted good research into CMS’s legal technology approach. You should aim for similar levels of specificity in your own writing. Rather than writing about legal technology in the abstract, you should identify the firm’s specific technology before analysing these examples thoroughly.

That said, the candidate’s quality of analysis is not particularly strong. The candidate simply asserts that Breach “connects users with lawyers efficiently”, whilst HighQ simply “enhances tracking”. Then, the candidate asserts that these platforms will “sharpen” their organisational skills without much further explanation. It is difficult to infer these conclusions because the candidate gives little insight/analysis into HighQ or Breach. For instance, HighQ is primarily used to track numbers, party details and for the storage of documents/bible indexes. Had the candidate picked out these features explicitly, they could then make a strong and specific argument explaining how they would use these platforms to improve their skills.

Recruiters are unlikely to be familiar with legal tech platforms like HighQ, so it’s well worth explaining these in full.

AI and machine learning in Data Analysis and Research add a dimension to legal  research. Employing tools like Kira AI for HP's $1bn acquisition accelerated contract  reviews by 30%, epitomising innovation, boosting efficiency, and reducing costs.  Leveraging this technology at CMS will involve me in intellectually rewarding work,  aiding my development as a technically proficient lawyer. Enhanced client  satisfaction will also position the firm attractively for start-ups seeking forward-thinking legal partners, offering opportunities to work with clients in emerging  industries.

Feedback: The candidate uses strong levels of specific detail in this paragraph. You should note how the candidate goes beyond simply talking about legal technology in the abstract. Instead, the candidate identifies a specific legal technology platform before providing (1) a specific high-value deal through which CMS incorporated Kira and (2) the precise statistical impact of Kira on the deal’s progress. You should aim for similar levels of specificity in your own writing. You should back up all your writing with high-quality evidence and specific research, so that you can convince the recruiter of your argument’s strengths.

As with the previous paragraph, the candidate’s analysis lacks depth in places. For instance, the candidate asserts that Kira “accelerated contract reviews” and “epitomised innovation”. They never explain precisely how Kira assisted with contract review on that specific deal. It is currently unclear how Kira assists with contract review, nor is it clear how CMS applied Kira to that specific deal. Given that CMS used Kira to automate document review and pick out common due diligence issues, we would expect the candidate to have analysed this point. Similarly, the candidate asserts that Kira “reduced costs” but never explains precisely how it did this. Instead of making these assertions, the candidate should have unpacked Kira’s benefits in thorough detail.

Similarly, the candidate’s personal analysis is quite weak and surface-level. They assert that this technology will “involve them in intellectually rewarding work” and “aid their development as a technically proficient lawyer”. It is not clear precisely how legal technology would achieve this for the candidate. As such, the candidate should have explained this point more thoroughly. Legal technology like Kira can automate lower-value tasks, which frees up time for the candidate to work on more substantive/meaningful tasks. As such, we would expect the candidate to pick out these points more explicitly.

Finally, the innovation seat at CMS will empower me to develop cutting-edge  technologies, positioning me at the forefront of a transformative legal landscape.  This ensures my journey remains relevant, impactful, and successful.

Feedback: This paragraph is the weakest because it lacks substantive detail and analysis. The candidate picks out CMS’ innovation seat but never explains (1) precisely what this seat involves nor (2) precisely how it would develop the candidate’s technological skills.

At 32 words, this paragraph contributes little to the candidate’s analysis but takes a significant amount of word space. The candidate could have safely cut this out in favour of more detailed analysis elsewhere. Given the restrictive 200-word limit, we would advise that you pick out no more than 1-2 points before analysing these in detail. You should prioritise depth of analysis over breadth of points.

Innovative and disruptive digital technologies are driving transformation across all sectors that Osborne Clarke operates in. Generative AI offers great potential for new insights, new efficiencies and new business models. It also raises tough questions and may challenge much of what we do.

The use of generative AI in recruitment is a particularly hot topic amongst candidates and recruitment teams alike. What are your views on candidates using generative AI in recruitment processes? Is it cheating, or being resourceful? Does it level the playing field, or make it harder for some? There is no right or wrong answer to this question (yet!), but we are interested to hear your opinions on this topic.

Max 500 words

With most companies embracing AI to optimise hiring processes, it is unfair and unfounded to prevent candidates from taking advantage of these tools. Firstly, in the dynamic legal landscape, a robust tech-savvy profile is not merely a desirable attribute but a crucial signal of adaptability and progressiveness. As an applicant, I perceive companies that strongly discourage the use of AI as lacking a progressive ethos and consequently, not adequately future facing. A study by Arctic Shores corroborates this viewpoint, revealing a 38% reduction in applications received when AI was prohibited in recruitment processes. This is particularly relevant for applicants with disabilities who rely on natural language processing technologies. These tools help level the playing field by enabling efficient creation and expression of original ideas.

Feedback: This paragraph provides a strong and clear introduction to the candidate’s perspective on the use of AI in recruitment processes. The candidate effectively applies the PEEL structure by stating their point upfront, explaining it with a relevant study, and using evidence. However, the content can be strengthened by providing more context about the study cited to avoid potential fallacies or doubts (that the reduction in applications received might be due to other factors) from recruiters about the candidate’s reasoning skills.

Companies should mirror this shift in the candidates’ perspective. Hiring practices must be reshaped to prioritise evaluating technological acumen, starting with recognising the potential of AI in application writing. This approach serves as a sophisticated gauge of candidates’ readiness to utilise advanced tools in the legal domain. During a recent event, OC Partner Gereon Abendroth emphasised that the role of legal tech at OC extends beyond ChatGPT, exemplified by the tailor-made solution for the OC Belgium office to navigate intricate labour law regulations. Such specialised tools underscore the importance for applicants to not only recognise the potential of AI today but also invest in developing the competence needed to effectively leverage advanced tools in their careers. Therefore, rather than viewing the use of generative AI as a form of cheating, OC should actively seek candidates who utilise this technology strategically and in a forward-thinking manner.

Feedback: The response here starts to integrate specific references to OC, which is excellent for tailoring the answer and demonstrates sufficient understanding and alignment with the firm’s values and directions. The mention of OC Partner and the specific legal tech tools used in the OC Belgium Office are strong examples of understanding. However, the paragraph could benefit from a clearer initial statement of the candidate’s point regarding the evaluation of technological acumen in the hiring processes. Providing more concrete opinions or suggestions would also help strengthen the answer.

Secondly, AI competence is valuable in assessing a key skill: critical thinking. As an applicant, if I fail to discern the inherent limitations of AI-generated content, it indicates my lack of suitability for work that demands robust critical thinking skills. During a discussion with Reed Smith’s graduate recruitment manager, Rebecca Schrod, a strong opposition to candidates using AI in applications emerged. According to her, AI strips applications of personalisation and produces cookie-cutter responses. Despite her reservations, she conceded that candidates who over-rely on AI, effectively failing to recognise its generic responses, inadvertently reveal a potential limitation in their critical thinking abilities. This highlights the growing importance of the ‘human touch’, as discussed by the OC graduate recruitment team at an event aptly named ‘Maintaining The Edge Through Human Capital’. Therefore, as applicants fail to or manage to recognise the need to combine AI with their own creativity and analytical thinking in upcoming cycles, it should be taken as a reflection of their capabilities.

Feedback: This paragraph showcases the candidate’s independent thinking and critical analytical skills. The contrasting views from Reed Smith’s recruitment manager provide a nuanced perspective that indirectly demonstrates the candidate’s ability to engage with complex ideas. It is a very strong response, with a well-detailed explanation of the candidate’s personal opinion.

Lastly, embracing technology as a young professional encourages authentic collaboration across generations. Technologically competent trainees will discover it to be a valuable skill in fostering confidence in their new role as senior lawyers turn to them for help in leveraging these tools. This perspective resonates with the overarching belief that embracing technology, including AI, is crucial for candidates to navigate today’s competitive legal landscape.

Feedback: This final paragraph effectively highlights the importance of embracing technology for young legal professionals and aligns well with the initial point about leveling the playing field. The candidate does well to demonstrate an understanding of the broader implications of technology in legal practice. Although the response is already very strong, it can be further strengthened by more explicitly connecting these ideas to OC’s specific initiatives or cultural attributes regarding technology and innovation. A more direct conclusion that ties all paragraphs together, reaffirming the candidate’s fit and enthusiasm for OC, would enhance the overall response.

Is technology and AI an opportunity or a threat for Addleshaw Goddard and why? * 330 words

Technology and AI present significant opportunities for Addleshaw Goddard. The key advantage is the enhanced efficiency AI and technology bring to client work delivery.

AI can be used specifically to automate written tasks and sift through large amounts of data in a short period of time. AI can also be used to analyse large amounts of legal documentation in order to identify key clauses and potential risks. This efficiency not only saves time but directs resources towards more specialised, revenue-generating client work, reducing the costs associated with routine tasks.

Furthermore, recent developments such as Verify 366, an innovative AI-powered solution designed to assist legal professionals and organisations in effectively managing Anti-Money Laundering (AML) risk and compliance, could be a potential opportunity for the firm. Integrating such technology aligns with ethical standards and regulatory requirements in the legal industry which would set Addleshaw Goddard apart in client service provision. This strategic adoption of technology has the potential to attract new clients and increase the overall workload for the firm.

However, careful consideration must be given to the associated cost of implementing new technology and AI systems. The firm needs to transparently communicate how these costs will be managed, whether absorbed internally or passed on to clients. Additionally, addressing the risk associated with confidential client data is important. The firm would need to implement stringent measures to ensure AI solutions comply with data security and privacy requirements.

Overall, AI and technology are an opportunity for the firm, however, balancing the potential benefits with the associated challenges is important. By adopting a strategic approach, Addleshaw Goddard can position itself as a leader in leveraging technology to enhance client services, while also addressing financial considerations and safeguarding client data.

Feedback: The candidate has done well to provide a balanced analysis on how technology AI impacts Addleshaw Goddard. The response aptly highlights the efficiencies and potential for client service through AI integration. You should also note how the candidate uses the specific example of Verify 366 in streamlining AML compliance. This is an effective example that demonstrates good understanding of the day-to-day operations of global law firms. AML is one of the biggest roadblocks for international law firms – they must apply thorough AML checks both in onboarding clients and throughout matters/deals. The candidate does well to highlight this. In addition, the candidate shows good understanding of how technological trends impact the legal sector. By discussing how technology enhances the provision of legal services for clients, the candidate demonstrates sound understanding of how law firms attract and retain clients.

The candidate’s answer should consider discussing how the roles of lawyers at Addleshaw Goddard might evolve with the implementation of these technologies. This would provide insights into the changing landscape of legal professions in the wake of AI and technology advancements. The candidate should also consider a discussion on the specific role of junior lawyers in the firm as it develops and integrates these technologies. This would not only reflect the candidate’s understanding of an international law firm’s operations but also highlight their foresight in considering career progression in a technologically evolving environment. 

What do you think will be the impact on law firms of the continuing advances in technology over the next few years? (200 words)

There are two central impacts to law firms from technology:

1. Improved efficiency of law firms.

Law firms are already seizing the opportunity that new technologies bring, allowing AI and computerisation of tasks to heighten efficiency and free up lawyers to undertake more complex and nuanced tasks.

Examples of this include Slaughter & May’s ‘Luminance’, Allen & Overy’s ‘Fuse’ hub which developed the now multimillion-pound firm ‘Kira’ (now used by A&O), Simmons & Simmons’ ‘Wavelength’ (the first ever ‘legal engineering’ technology), and Clifford Chance’s ‘Create+65’.

This collection of examples serves to illustrate how technology is becoming a necessity if law firms desire competitiveness. The technology reduces the workload on lawyers, reduces monotony of tasks, and increases the accuracy of analysis. This is needed to attract clients, and to keep the best lawyers working at the firm.

[Feedback: It’s incredible how much difference an effective structure lends to your answer, particularly where you are constrained by word count.  It’s up to you whether you use headings but they work well here.  The key is to clearly split out your answer with distinct sections for every new point.

In this section, the candidate talks about how technology will affect the delivery of legal services.  The candidate thoughtfully provides some mainstream examples of legal tech, namely tech incubators hosted by some of the largest law firms.  If you want to dive deeper, see this map of legal tech startups and scaleups provided by Legal Geek.  We suggest that the scaleup examples further down the page are the best ones to briefly research and include in your application because they have the best brand recognition among law firms, but there is some exciting stuff happening at the early-stage startups too.]

2. Increasing opportunities as technology outstrips legislation.

Technology breeds technology: advances are exponentially increasing resulting in more unique goods, services, and opportunities in the markets. Legislation can rarely keep up, and there are more opportunities for technology to ‘go rogue’ or for issues to occur. For law firms, this presents further opportunities and challenges to help their clients: a lucrative but intense future.

[Feedback: Think about money laundering.  Separate this into improved delivery and new opportunities to provide advice that we have not even considered need for

[Feedback: In this section, the candidate makes the valid point that technology is likely to create the need for legal advice for new sectors and use cases that we have not even considered yet.  For example, someone will need to advise on the legal implications of space law given the advances by SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, but there will be many other use cases for technology (and hence demand for legal services) which we cannot even envisage yet. 

The candidate could develop the second part of his answer further.  It’s not so much that legislation can’t keep up: clients would still need advice about their powers and obligations in respect of emerging areas of commerce even if all necessary legislation was somehow in place.  Nevertheless, this is a strong answer given the limited word count.]