Cleary Gottlieb Winter Vacation Scheme - November 2024
What was the full recruitment process?
1. Application: CV + Cover Letter
2. Psychometric test: Watson Glaser
3. Assessment centre
4. Vacation scheme
Which aspect does this report cover?
Vacation scheme assessment centre
Where did the assessment centre take place?
The firm's London office
What did the assessment centre involve?
1. M&A Workshop: contract terms negotiations based on a fictitious M&A deal (1 hour total)
2. Technical interview: oral presentation on advice I would give a client based on a fictional record deal (20 minutes reading and preparation time, 40 minute interview with 1 partner and 1 trainee)
3. Competency interview: mostly competency, but also some motivation and commercial awareness questions (45 minutes with 1 HR and 1 trainee)
There was also a presentation at the beginning from a partner and a Q&A session with current trainees. These were not assessed.
M&A Workshop
On arriving at the interview, I was put into a group of six, which made the basis for our group negotiation exercise. We were put into two teams of three, and given a sheet containing information about what our client wanted from the negotiation. One party was a TV network company and the other a TV channel, and it was a merger-based task. There was quite a lot of information to take in, and I found that I struggled to finish reading the document in time.
We were observed as we discussed in our teams which points we were willing to concede and which points we needed to push for. The negotiation lasted for quite a while, and we were told we were not expected to reach a conclusion: they just wanted to observe how we negotiated. We were observed by an associate and a trainee.
The task was quite commercially focused, and I found myself using knowledge from my company law class, for example discussing right of first refusal and lock in periods for shares, and was expected to know generally how board meetings and share acquisition worked. The task was self directed, with the observing lawyers really just watching and adding very little. We were able to move through the contract terms as we wished as a group.
Technical interview
I was given a short bundle of documents and around 20 minutes to read through and make notes in a silent room with my group. We were given a black pen, but I took a highlighter to the interview, which I highly recommend as it made the presentation process a little easier.
We were instructed to identify any issues with the provisional clauses in a music record deal agreement, for which we were acting on behalf of the record company, but the document was vague as to what these issues might be.
After 20 minutes, I was taken to my interview room with a partner and a trainee solicitor. After a little small talk, I was asked to present in turn each clause and any issues with it. After each clause, I was asked some detailed questions to clarify my position and explore the legal aspects in more depth. A lot of the questions involved intellectual property, as the deal involved music. I was asked specific questions about what aspects of music can be copyrighted, and what constitutes “bad character” with regards to an escape clause. All of the clauses had at least a small issue and there were none that should have been skipped over. Some clauses had several issues.
Most of the clauses were just too vague, for example “The Band must produce one album per year”. I was expected to pick up that “year” needs to be defined, such as “per calendar year” or starting from a particular month, and that the record company should state how long these albums should be. I was asked about the basics of construction of clauses.
The partner interviewer made reference to my CV several times during the interview and had it in front of him on the desk. I felt challenged in the interview, but I also felt that each time I admitted not knowing the answer to something it was working against me. I felt that they would have preferred that I took a chance on an answer and was wrong than admitting that I didn’t know.
In my feedback, I was told that missing some points in the initial presentation worked against me, and that I did not pick up on some of their prompts towards the correct answer. I was also advised to make better use of my preparation time. However, I had felt that the preparation time did not feel too rushed.
Competency interview
Competency questions
Motivation questions
Legal and commercial awareness questions
The interview was not very commercially focused (though commercial awareness was more than covered in the other parts of the assessment centre). I felt that the HR interviewers wanted to know me as a person. There were no unexpected questions, so I felt I had prepared for everything (this feeling was shared by the other members of my group coming out of their competency interviews).
What was the outcome?
The firm emailed me a week after the assessment centre to tell me I had been unsuccessful.
Do you have any specific advice on how to prepare?
The competency interview is very straightforward. They ask you very common competency and motivation questions and are not trying to catch you out. I was told that I came across as “friendly and convincing with no red flags” and that the competency interview was my strongest of the day. Really just make sure that you understand your own motivations for wanting to work at that firm specifically and you have lots of different experiences to back up your competencies.
The group negotiation was challenging. I tried to strike the balance between speaking enough, only saying things that I was confident and thoughtful about, and not dominating the conversation. Ultimately, I was told that I came across as too nervous and should have contributed more during the preparation stage. My piece of advice for this exercise would be to practice reading longer, technical documents in a short amount of time, as I felt that I would have been able to contribute more if I wasn’t still trying to finish reading the document during the group discussion! You will certainly find members of your group who will dominate the conversation! Learn how to interrupt assertively but tactfully.
As for the case study interview, really make sure that you analyse every word you read and try to picture how the clauses could possibly be abused by the other party. If the interviewers suggest something to you, they are not trying to catch you out, but lead you to the correct answer, so do not resist their suggestions. Familiarise yourself with what contract clauses look like and how much detail they need to be in.
Cleary Gottlieb Vacation Scheme - January 2024
What was the full recruitment process?
1. Application
2. Watson Glaser Test
3. Assessment centre
4. Vacation scheme
Which aspect does this report cover?
Vacation scheme assessment centre
Where did the assessment centre take place?
The firm's London office
What did the assessment centre involve?
CV and competency interview
Competency questions
Motivation questions
Legal and commercial awareness questions
Competition workshop
We had been placed in small groups for the whole of the day, with approximately 5-6 people per group. The competition workshop was the only group/teamwork-based exercise we faced.
The associates (both of whom worked in competition law) began by introducing the basics of their practice (e.g. what body is responsible for regulating competition in the UK (the Competition and Markets Authority, or “CMA”), what the CMA looks for when assessing whether an M&A deal is anti-competitive etc.). We were then given an 8-10 page booklet on a fictional M&A deal involving a supermarket chain and a petrol company. The booklet contained ample background information (some deliberately irrelevant) about the acquirer and target company, such as their annual revenues, market shares, store locations, statistics on the elasticity of demand for their respective products, and other complicated graphs.
The group was then split into two sides: three people arguing in favour of the acquisition (i.e. arguing that it was not anti-competitive); and two people arguing against it (i.e. arguing that it was anti-competitive). Both sides had to consider their products, geographical locations, and ability to raise prices.
We were given 15 minutes to work with our team and allocate the 3 topics between us. When the preparation time was over, each person had to give a 5-minute presentation on their allocated topic in front of the 2 associates (who were acting as the CMA). I was asked the following questions:
You do not need to have an in-depth understanding of competition law to do well (especially given that the associates give you all the background information that you need), but it is certainly worth spending a couple of hours before the day of the assessment centre familiarising yourself with the basics of competition law - in particular, how the CMA assesses whether a merger is anti-competitive.
This was definitely the hardest assessment of the day, mainly because of the enormous amount of data that you are given and expected to filter through in the span of 15 minutes.
Technical interview
During the 20 minutes preparation time, I was given a 2-page fictional scenario where my client, an established record label, wanted to sign a recording contract with an up-and-coming band. The document included some background information about the band. The main focus was on the 6 (very simple) draft terms that my client and the band had already agreed upon, including terms regarding how the band was to act, the costs/expenses that my client would be responsible for, and when my client would have the right to terminate the contract. My task was to flag up issues around those terms and make suggestions on how the final terms should be written instead.
During the 40-minute interview with the partner/trainee, I had a lot of freedom and control over the direction and structure of the interview. It felt a lot more like an oral presentation with the occasional interjecting or clarifying question, as opposed to an ‘interview’. Some clarifying questions included:
I felt like the 20 minutes preparation time was a sufficient amount to prepare, so it didn’t feel like I was under significant time pressure. Try to pick up on all the key issues and nuances in the document (especially given how little information you are given). Plan your oral presentation using very brief and clear notes (to save time) whilst making sure the notes/presentation plan allow you to systematically address every potential issue with the draft contractual terms.
What was the outcome?
The firm emailed me a week after the assessment centre to tell me I had been unsuccessful.
Do you have any specific advice on how to prepare?
The CV/competency interview is very straightforward and casual. Make sure you know the experiences on your CV inside out. Have a good and unique answer as to why exactly you picked this firm (this requires knowing what sets this firm apart from others).
Although the competition workshop is the most intellectually challenging part of the AC, remember that it is testing teamwork and cooperation as much as it is logic/competency (if not more). Be cautious of what you say and do during the 15 minutes of preparation team because the associates are paying attention (e.g. whether you ask for your teammate’s opinions, whether you help your teammate with something they’re struggling with, whether you are proactive/a team player).
The technical interview was my favourite part of the AC. I found the fictional scenario to be very interesting and intellectually stimulating. The questions posed by the partner/trainee rarely challenged anything I said. Instead, it felt like they were working with me to give my client the best advice. I found the freedom to structure and control the direction of the interview to be much more relaxing. The 40 minutes flew by.
" } }