Click here to access our full database of example successful applications, including hundreds with detailed feedback from qualified commercial lawyers.

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.