Given the Government’s commitment to be Net Zero by 2050, please provide three suggestions on how commercial law firms like AG can support and help contribute towards this goal? (2000 characters)

Firstly, it is important for firms to set targets. By setting their own goals, a firm will have a more personal view of the Net Zero commitment, and will see how important their contribution is to the wider goal. Setting a target and sharing it publicly also provides a degree of accountability, ensuring that firms don't stray away from it. Also, reporting publicly on the firm's progress in achieving the goal provides another layer of accountability, and also acts as a strong motivator to keep going. Increasing regulation might require firms to report emissions anyway, and this is an incentive to reach the target as the firm will not want to appear behind other firms.

Feedback: This is a classic commercial awareness question. It requires you to provide three tailored and detailed arguments explaining how AG specifically can contribute towards the Net Zero commitment. You should structure these paragraphs using the PEEL/AL structure.

In that regard, the candidate structures this paragraph somewhat well. The candidate begins by stating a point addressing the question directly. They identify (1) a means by which law firms can contribute to Net Zero before (2) explaining precisely how this method would help them contribute to it. The candidate then spends the remaining paragraph explaining how they think firms can contribute to Net Zero. This results in a fairly cogent paragraph that is quite straightforward to follow.

However, this paragraph needed to improve in the following ways:

1. The candidate’s initial point is underdeveloped. They assert that firms should “set targets”, but they never provide any further insight into what these targets are nor how they might help. In your own writing, you must develop your proposed solutions in full and provide specific evidence supporting them.

2. The candidate’s writing is unfocused and incoherent in places. In particular, the candidate tends to jump from point to point without fully explaining (nor providing evidence for) each one. For instance, the candidate begins by asserting that firms will have a “more personal view of Net Zero” if they set targets. They never explain what they mean nor how this would help the firm contribute to Net Zero. Then, the candidate jumps to the point that public targets would include a “degree of accountability”. Again, the candidate never provides specific evidence or explanation for this. Finally, the candidate jumps to the point that the government might require firms to report emissions anyway. This point is similarly underdeveloped. To avoid this issue, you should identify no more than one point per paragraph. You must then develop each point in full using the PEEL structure.

3. The candidate does not tailor their writing to AG (or even to commercial law firms). Instead, they write about “firms” generically. This does not truly answer the question. AG want to know how you think they can address Net Zero, so you need to gear your analysis towards them specifically.

After setting a target, a firm needs to implement strategies to achieve it. Here, a lot of small but fundamental changes will need to be made. A focus on legal technology and the digitalisation of paperwork would be ideal here, given the immense amount of paper used in discovery and litigation. Allowing staff to work from home a few days a week would also make a huge impact, as it would cut down the pollution caused by daily commutes. Lastly, investing in green infrastructure would contribute immensely - this can be anything from installing solar panels to using energy-efficient lighting and HVAC systems. Not only would this contribute to the wider goal of Net Zero, but it would also support it - if one firm is to implement a strategy, then other firms are likely to follow through fear of falling behind or getting a bad reputation. Firms could use social media to show what they are doing to contribute, which not only holds them accountable, but also supports the goal by raising awareness of it.

Feedback: The candidate once again does well to lead in with their point straight away. We know what point the candidate will argue from the outset, which in turn helps the recruiter follow the candidate’s writing more easily (and so be persuaded by their arguments). The candidate also lists out a variety of different Net Zero strategies, which demonstrates that they have at least some understanding of what Net Zero involves. 

However, this paragraph suffers from similar weaknesses to the previous:

1. The candidate’s writing is unfocused and all-over-the place once again. As with the previous paragraph, the candidate jumps from strategy to strategy without ever explaining precisely how each one answers the question. For instance, the candidate asserts that legal technology would reduce paperwork but never connects this point back to Net Zero. Then, the candidate makes generic assertions about work-from-home policies before jumping over to green infrastructure and solar panels. This results in an incoherent and underdeveloped paragraph. It is not clear precisely what the candidate is arguing, nor how it addresses the question.

2. Much of the candidate’s writing is speculative. For instance, the candidate speculates that firms could “use social media” to “raise awareness” of the goal. At another point, the candidate speculates that “working from home” would “cut down pollution”. The candidate never offers any specific or detailed evidence in support of these points. In your own writing, you must back up your points with specific statistics, numbers and factual details. This will add great persuasive value to your arguments.

3. The candidate’s writing is not truly tailored to commercial law firms (let alone AG). Most of the candidate’s strategies will have been considered by all businesses operating in all sectors, let alone commercial law firms. The candidate’s only relevant point relates to legal technology, but even this is not unique to commercial law firms. Most firms and chambers will be thinking about how they can use technology to reduce paperwork. As such, the candidate’s analysis is not focused tightly enough on the question.

Lastly, firms can have a lot of impact in their traditional advisory role. Solicitors can take action against climate change by drafting robust and meaningful net zero clauses in line with, for example, the Paris Agreement goals. Firms will need to educate their staff on what net zero means so that they can help clients steer their business planning accordingly, and advise on energy transition schemes and renewable infrastructure projects.

Feedback: This paragraph is a slight improvement on the previous. At the beginning, the candidate identifies a means by which solicitors might contribute their legal skills towards the Net Zero goals. This begins to tailor the candidate’s writing to the specific paragraph.

That said, this paragraph is quite weak overall in the following regards:

1. The candidate asserts that solicitors can draft “robust and meaningful net zero clauses”. However, the candidate never explains (1) what these clauses would involve nor (2) precisely how they would contribute to net zero. This results in an underdeveloped, weak and speculative argument overall.

2. As with previous writing, the candidate’s argument is unfocused. The candidate starts with the point about net zero clauses, before jumping over to the point about firms needing to “educate staff” about net zero. The candidate never substantiates either point.

Had the candidate focused on one point per paragraph, then they would have been able to drill down on each point in much greater detail.

What can BCLP do to stay profitable and what should BCLP be highlighting to clients when pitching for work?

BCLP should keep equipping their employees with tools to foster a collegiate environment and ensure profitability. BCLP has recognised the importance of fostering a collaborative environment, as evidenced by ‘DMS bridge’ which merged the two initial firms’ systems and created an efficient and secure workflow. BCLP should build on this, by conducting quarterly reviews across the whole firm to ensure ease of communication between employees, no matter where they are located.

[Feedback:  This paragraph shows deep knowledge of the inner BCLP working (workflow management is very niche!) and is a creative way to answer this question. It’s also an interesting angle to claim that collegiality boosts profitability; we’re not sure that’s true, but it’s certainly a unique take on the question that will make the candidate stand out. The only notable negative is that the final sentence relates to the collaboration element without tying it back to profitability, which is what the question is driving at. “Keep” could be replaced with “continue” and the word “foster” is repeated.]

My certification from [redacted] has helped me understand the importance of legal technology for profitability. Initiatives such as BCLP’s CrossLITE and SwiftAgree, which are key parts of the firm’s digitisation strategy, are essential to increasing efficiency. However, BCLP should continue to invest in legal technology to remain profitable since technology is constantly evolving. As evidenced, by startups such as Priori Legal, which have begun aggregating and analysing data to replace the billable hour with fixed fees.

[Feedback: Excellent research and a great job of tying in the candidate’s own certification. This could be improved by rewording the final sentence to read “This has been evidenced by startups such as Priori Legal…”]

BCLP should streamline its internal processes to remain profitable. BCLP should review process efficiency and effectiveness of their services, such as ‘BCLP cubed’ to ensure ease of information exchange between solicitors, volume delivery teams, and Cantilever.

[Feedback:  This paragraph is good and again shows tremendous inside knowledge but would fit better as part of the first paragraph on communication. It also should explain what Cantilever is.]

When pitching for work to clients, BCLP should highlight their accolades and experience in the relevant field they are operating in. For example, the energy and infrastructure team would highlight their 2019 ‘team of the year award’ (at the Legal Business Awards). Additionally, BCLP should also showcase their general understanding of the relevant sector and nuances of the particular work involved.

[Feedback: This is the weakest paragraph of this answer. The research is good but it tries to cram in two points into two sentences, instead of building out each reason more fulsomely. It’s important to remember that the question posed had two parts. The first was on profitability but the second was on pitching to clients, while 3 out of 4 paragraphs answered only the first question.]

If Browne Jacobson was looking to acquire or merge with another firm, what factors would we need to take into consideration and why?

Whilst a firm's practice areas and culture are obvious factors that must be taken into consideration, I believe that geography, and especially technology, are increasingly important factors that must be considered if acquiring or merging with another firm. Browne Jacobson is already the UK’s leading national firm, but their market position can be strengthened by expanding their brand internationally. For example, many leading UK and US law firms are opening offices in Dublin to have direct access to the EU market. Many solicitors are qualifying with the Ireland Law Society, as Ireland has a similar legal system to the UK. Having acted for Vision Express on the proposed acquisition of Tesco’s UK and Ireland opticians’ business in 2017, geographical expansion would also allow Browne Jacobson to strengthen and solidify client relationships by providing cross-border legal services.

Feedback: The candidate clearly identifies four factors that Browne Jacobson would plausibly need to take into consideration if it were looking to acquire or merge with another firm, namely its practice areas, culture, geographical reach, and technological capabilities, but only discusses the latter two at length. Given the word limit, we recommend following the candidate’s example and discussing two factors at length in your answer; recruiters tend to appreciate the depth of your answer more than the breadth thereof because it allows them a glimpse into your thought process and it highlights the extent of your research into the firm as well as your commercial awareness.

The candidate explains why geographical reach is a relevant factor to take into consideration and illustrates their explanation with an example before linking it back to Browne Jacobson. In doing so, they ensure that their answer is comprehensive and that their ability to think critically shines through. To achieve a similar effect, we recommend following the “PEEL” structure (“point”, “evidence”, “explanation”, “link”).

By referencing the post-Brexit market trend toward setting up shop in Ireland, the candidate demonstrates their wider commercial awareness. By referencing Browne Jacobson’s tangential involvement in Irish matters for its existing clients, the candidate demonstrates their research into the firm as well as their understanding of the importance of solidifying relationships with clients for the business of a law firm. To take their answer to the next level, the candidate could have contrasted Browne Jacobson’s geographical reach with that of its competitors rather than that of “many leading UK and US law firms”. In doing so, they would have further showcased their research into the firm and they would have demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of the legal market. If you wish to identify the competitors of a given firm, we recommend familiarising yourself with its practice area strengths, geographical reach, clientele, financials and strategy, and using the foregoing as your terms of comparison. We also recommend consulting websites such as The Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.

Acquiring or merging with a firm that has committed to integrating legal technology into their value chain would sharpen Browne Jacobson's competitive edge. Browne Jacobson should consider committing to a single set of systems with accompanying practices, procedures, and protocols across all offices. The recent collaboration with BigHand to implement a task delegation tool and a task management module to drive efficiency, process improvements, and continuous service innovation, is an example of the firm's willingness to deliver sustainable and efficient legal services. Acquiring or merging with a firm that shares a forward-thinking approach in adopting legal technology would ultimately increase Browne Jacobson's ability to reduce operating costs and competitively price its legal services.

Feedback: Echoing the comments made supra, the candidate explains why technological capabilities constitute a relevant factor to take into consideration and illustrates their explanation with an example before linking it back to Browne Jacobson. Notably, the candidate uses technical terms such as “value chain” and “competitive edge” correctly. To take their answer to the next level and further showcase their commercial awareness, the candidate could have mentioned the current market trend toward embracing technology in order to deliver legal services in a more efficient manner.

Dechert is frequently retained to work on the most challenging matters, and prides itself on its ability to deliver premium legal services and sound business judgment to its clients. In your opinion, other than the above, what are the three key reasons why our clients instruct us? (300 words)

An obvious reason for clients to instruct Dechert is its reputation and high tier ranking across a range of practice areas. For example, Legal 500 ranks the firm in Tier 1 for Corporate Crime and Regulation. Moreover: over half of Dechert's 2018 revenue came from clients who have been with the firm for more than 5 years. This shows the quality of Dechert's expertise and reputation across its work, resulting in clients not only instructing Dechert, but also retaining them.

[Feedback:  This question invites the candidate to further expound upon their motivation to train and work at Dechert. You should note that although the question does not specifically ask you to address attractive features of the firm, this kind of question is essentially acting as a simulacrum of a ‘why Dechert?’ question. Naturally, however, you must answer it with reference to clients and the firm’s work.

The candidate begins their answer by addressing Dechert’s wide-ranging, and high-ranking expertise. The paragraph involves parts of a PEE/AL structure: the candidate clearly states their point, provides some substantiating evidence, and gives a loose explanation of why this evidence is pertinent.

The candidate does well to involve some specific evidence in their answer by way of facts and statistics. Although the reference to figures relating to 2018 are outdated, the candidate’s effort and research comes through in their response.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have elaborated more on why clients require their law firms to have expertise in a variety of practice areas. The candidate highlights that this is something that is attractive to commercial clients; however, they decline to explain why this is the case, and why Dechert specifically is best placed to fulfil that need (more so that, say, Clifford Chance, who also ranks highly in a variety of practice areas).

Though the evidence regarding 2018 revenue and client retention is impressive, the candidate would have been able to improve their answer by cutting this and expanding on their explanation of their existing evidence. The question already states that Dechert is ‘frequently retained’; hence, you do not need to reiterate this or provide evidence for this in your answers.]

Clients choose to instruct Dechert for the firm's ingenuity and progressiveness in the legal sector. Recently, Dechert advised Airbus in the global strategy and investigation over alleged bribery and corruption. This led to the first coordinated global settlement with major UK, French and American authorities, and instituted technology to help with the review of documents and due diligence. This is the first case of its kind to be conducted almost completely by machine learning technology and highlights the ingenuity and adaptability of Dechert's service to clients.

[Feedback: In this paragraph, the candidate discusses Dechert’s use of technology and client service by making reference to a settlement concerning Airbus. This paragraph has a stronger structure than the preceding paragraph, especially concerning ‘evidence’ and ‘explanation/analysis’.

The candidate’s answer provides a good example of how to use a matter to evidence a claim. Not only does the candidate demonstrate good research skills by citing a matter the firm has worked on, but the candidate elevates the quality of their answer by discussing why that matter was of significant importance. Although the candidate could have provided some additional information to embellish the answer (such as citing the total settlement amount – approximately €3.6bn), the answer is broadly complete on this front.

To improve, the candidate could have been a little clearer on what technology was employed. Ultimately, the candidate is trying to claim that Dechert’s use of technology is what adds value for their clients (more so than what other firms can). Hence, it is important to be especially clear as to what this technology is, and how it adds such value. The latter point could be better addressed in the paragraph’s concluding sentence. Although the employment of machine learning technology is impressive, the candidate would have done well to state explicitly how such technology results in better outcomes for clients (for example, reducing the number of hours billed to the client, faster outcomes, or more accurate results).

Lastly, another reason why clients instruct Dechert can be attributed to the continual restructuring and lateral hires across practice areas. The recruitment of Alistair Goldrein to the London office is indicative of Dechert's effort to strengthening its restructuring and insolvency practice. The hire of Marianna Tothova forms part of the firm's wider strategy to increase funds capabilities across Europe, in response to the growing threat of Brexit. Both hires indicate to clients that the firm actively engages in the legal market and the wider economy to bolster its current roster of lawyers, and ensures the work delivered is done by the best in their relevant practice areas.

[Feedback: This paragraph’s strength is its level of detail. The candidate demonstrates a good level of research and awareness regarding the firm’s movements. Additionally, demonstrates some commercial awareness in their answer by linking the lateral hire of Ms Tothova to Brexit. Although the paragraph is not perfect, you should strive to employ a similar level of detail and commercial awareness in your answers.

The central point of improvement for this paragraph concerns the lack of a ‘link’. Whilst the candidate has gone into a substantial level of detail, they have failed to answer the question directly. When you have drafted a paragraph, ask yourself ‘so what?’. If the response to this question is not already contained within your answer then you have not properly linked it back to the application form’s question.

In this case, the candidate has discussed Dechert’s practice area expansion and their lateral hires. So what? What does this mean for clients? Yes, ‘the firm actively engages in the legal market and the wider economy to bolster its current roster of lawyers, and ensures the work delivered is done by the best in their relevant practice areas’ – but why should clients care? Although you may feel that to describe why clients should care is redundant (as it is obvious), it is imperative that you do so. Do not leave the recruiter guessing or having to infer from your answer, as this then leaves the success of your application up to chance (depending on whether the recruiter is in a charitable mood or not).]

Foot Anstey focuses on six key sectors: Financial Services; Media & Entertainment, Developers, Retail & Consumer, Energy and Private Wealth.

In light of the above, if you could introduce one organisation to Foot Anstey, who would it be and why?

Please do not exceed 400 words

Feedback: To ensure that your answer is both comprehensive and easy-to-follow, we would recommend splitting it into four paragraphs of roughly equal length, with the first two providing background information regarding your organisation of choice, and the last two providing arguments in support of introducing said organisation to Foot Anstey. To ensure that you choose an appropriate organisation to introduce to the firm, we would recommend that you research Foot Anstey’s clients across its six key sectors, which should allow you to narrow down the kinds of organisations that gravitate towards the firm in terms of profile, offering, business model, size, etc. To ensure that your answer is persuasive, we would recommend emphasising the unique selling points (USPs) and the opportunities presented by your organisation of choice before explaining why it might need the legal services offered by Foot Anstey. In this case, the candidate has structured their answer in a slightly less efficient manner but has chosen an appropriate organisation to introduce to the firm and put forward reasonably persuasive arguments in support of their choice.

I would introduce Starling Bank to Foot Anstey. Starling are a new technology savvy bank which has transitioned from a fintech start-up in the past five years to be a high-growth bank. They have a range of direct to consumer offerings and specific support for SME financing. Their offer is already popular with startups, freelancers and other businesses looking for less traditional banking providers. At the core of their model is a vision to help customers manage their finances in a digital, intelligent and intuitive way. This is built on a serious investment in hard core technology using their own proprietary machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to create personalised customer experiences and tailored recommendations for customers.

Feedback:This paragraph is effective because it makes the candidate’s organisation of choice, i.e., Sterling Bank, immediately clear to the reader and it provides them with background information regarding the profile (a bank that “has transitioned from a fintech start-up [...] to a high-growth bank”), offering (“a range of [direct-to-consumer services] and […] SME financing”), and business model (investment in own ML and AI platforms) of said organisation. For emphasis, the candidate could have expressly stated that Sterling Bank operates in one of Foot Anstey’s six key sectors, i.e., Financial Services, though this is a relatively minor point. Depending on your organisation of choice, you could also include information regarding its size, products and/or services, clients, partners, philosophy, strategy for growth, etc.

In addition to these direct services, Starling also manage a Marketplace, which provides clients with access to third party financial services, and is actively adding new partners to this including bill management, insurance providers, savings accounts, and accounting software providers. They have ambitious plans to develop the breadth of this offering, including a charity section. All of these third party providers connect with Starling’s App via proprietary API technology.

Starling have also developed partnerships and approaches to help its customers bridge the physical-digital divide. They have a partnership with the Post Office so clients can deposit cash, and provide a simple mechanism to post cheques to Starling so they can be deposited.

Feedback: These paragraphs provide the reader with further information regarding the candidate’s organisation of choice, highlighting its multifaceted offering and expansionary plans. To maximise their use of the word count and achieve a similar effect, the candidate could have provided such information in a more succinct manner by omitting superfluous details and using simple syntax; in doing so, the candidate could have used the remainder of the word count to explain why their organisation of choice should be introduced to Foot Anstey and how it might be assisted by the firm in more detail.

Since November 2018 Starling have had a growth of more than 110% in customer numbers and more than 200% in deposit base, now approaching £1 billion. Starling have ambitious growth plans, including in-house technical team, new offices in Southampton and Cardiff, and are reaching into EU countries (Ireland, Netherlands, France and Germany). They are committed to diversity in their leadership and staffing, and have a Technology for Good approach to new technology such as Artificial Intelligence. They have a strong innovation pipeline, with a four year programme to create 50 new banking products.

Starling are ambitious and growing fast. They are actively disrupting the UK’s banking sector, and will need to be able to access a real breadth of expertise to ensure that they remain sure footed as they keep growing and new regulatory pressures and management challenges arise.

Feedback: The candidate implicitly suggests that their organisation of choice should be introduced to Foot Anstey because it is “ambitious and growing fast” and is likely to require the kind of legal assistance that the firm offers as it pursues its expansionary plans. For emphasis, the candidate could have made the foregoing suggestion explicitly, though this is a relatively minor point.

The candidate does well to provide the reader with specific coordinates in terms of Starling’s evolution because such coordinates bolster the strength of their answer and increase its credibility (e.g., “Since November 2018 Starling have had a growth of more than 110% in customer numbers”, “new offices in Southampton and Cardiff”, “a four-year programme to create [fifty] new banking products”). The candidate also does well to draw a link between the “regulatory pressures and management challenges” that Starling could face as part of its evolution and Foot Anstey’s expertise in the financial services sector.

To showcase their commercial awareness and critical thinking skills, the candidate could have briefly explained why Starling’s evolution is relevant to a law firm such as Foot Anstey in addition to stating that Starling is “actively disrupting the UK’s banking sector”. Remember that law firms, too, are businesses and their success depends on having clients that require their services in their various pursuits; having a client that is creating lucrative opportunities for itself within a given market and/or attempting to break into a different market is beneficial because it means that said client will encounter a great deal of legal issues that call for assistance from well-equipped legal professionals. At the same time, the candidate could have given examples of the kinds of tasks and/or responsibilities that Foot Anstey could undertake to assist Staling in its various pursuits (e.g., provide Starling with advice regarding the relevant regulatory landscape(s), liaise with the relevant authorities on behalf of Starling, etc.). Equally, the candidate could have given examples of similar organisations that Foot Anstey has advised within the financial sector. 

Word count (max. 250 words):
From the research you have done, what do you think Penningtons Manches LLP will need to do to stay competitive in the legal market?

When it comes to the local market, Pennington Manches needs to stay ahead of the other Cambridge firms, especially as Cambridge is an important office. Focusing on areas where the branch does well among other East Anglia firms, namely the Employment department, which was awarded Band 2 on Chambers and Partners. This should be the top priority of the firm, in order to gain even more reputable clients in the area, such as Ocado Retail. Employment may be an area of growing demand for legal advice, as the status of non-disclosure agreements and their impact on harassment in the workplace has been scrutinised, as recently debated in relation to the Phillip Green scandal.

[Feedback: The candidate has approached this question by dividing their answer into two parts. The first section addresses Penningtons’ strategy in Cambridge, whilst the second section addresses the firm’s strategy nationwide. This is an unconventional approach to this question, especially given the limited word count; however, it is a sophisticated structure so long as the candidate could pull it off well.

This question is quite common on law firms’ application forms. Typically, we would expect an answer to this question to contain, at the very least, the following:

1. An understanding of the firm’s specialisms (and a selection of one area to discuss).

2. An understanding of one or more of the general problems plaguing the legal market (the more-for-less issue, increased competition, legal technology, economic crises, emerging markets, and so on).

3. A clear argument which details a strategy for the firm to remain competitive.

Here, the candidate focuses on the Cambridge office. They do well to identify the firm’s key strengths as part of the Cambridge office and suggest focusing on growing their already strong employment practice. The candidate suggests that by strengthening this department, they may be able to acquire larger clients such as Ocado. They also suggest that employment-related work may increase due to the issues related to workplace harassment.

The candidate has done well in tailoring their argument to the firm. The candidate has identified a strength of the firm in employment work and noted a trend in the market related to that strength. The candidate has also identified a benefit of further bolstering the firm’s strength.

The central point of improvement for this answer relates to answering the question. Whilst the candidate’s discussion is useful, it does not explicitly answer the question – the reader is left asking, ‘so what?’. You should use the terms of the question to ensure that you answer it. The candidate should have included a link back to the question and explained how what they just described results in the firm remaining competitive. You should be employing a PEEL structure for these kinds of answers. Unfortunately, by missing the link element, the candidate’s answer is in limbo – it provides some meaningful discussion, but it is not focused on the question.

Whilst a recruiter may be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt for missing the link back to the question, it is inadvisable for you to take this risk. You must be explicit in your argumentation and make the recruiter’s job as easy as possible – an application that unduly slows the recruiter down is unlikely to be treated favourably.]

As to its national strategy, Penningtons Manches, as a corporate firm with branches in six locations in the UK, needs to strengthen its position as a regional firm. Its impressive reputation in the Real Estate sector (Band 2 on Chambers & Partners), with high-profile clients such as Jimmy Choo and Ikea, suggests the firm should make the department its unique selling point. As the firm primarily deals with institutional investors and developers, these clients are more prone to be impacted by recent technology trends in the real estate sector, as they attract larger capital. The firm faces a potential outburst of work, as the emergence of technologies, mainly the combination of blockchain and big data, creates opportunities for large scale acquisitions of property, as confirmed by a recent study conducted by PwC.

[Feedback: In this paragraph, the candidate switches focus and discusses the firm’s wider strategy. The candidate suggests that the firm should focus on real estate work and that new technological developments will generate an uplift in work within the sector.

The candidate does well to include some specific detail in their answer. The candidate evidences the firm’s strength in the sector by citing Chambers & Partners and gives names of some of the firm’s clients. The candidate also demonstrates some knowledge concerning trends in the legal industry.

Like the above paragraph, the candidate is missing some strong argumentation. Whilst their discussion is valid, the candidate needed to have explained what all this had to do with the firm remaining competitive. In fact, one could argue that Penningtons may struggle to remain competitive given that it is only ranked in Band 2 (not Band 1) in the sector. The candidate should have included some additional information about the firm's unique facets that would allow it to take advantage of the growth of the real estate sector.

You must remember that all law firms will look to take advantage of trends. Therefore, you must specify how the firm you are applying to is best placed to take advantage of a trend and remain competitive.

Finally, you should avoid generic statements or giving vague examples. The candidate describes ‘blockchain and big data’ but does not explain why those technologies are relevant in the real estate sector. They also briefly cite a ‘recent study conducted by PwC’. These are superficial statements; whilst they evidence some understanding, the recruiter may be sceptical of the candidate’s true understanding. When you write your answers, you should try to include some additional specific information to demonstrate that you actually understand what you are writing. In this case, the candidate should have given an example of how the technology is being used and cited the name of the PwC study.]

As one of only a handful of global elite law firms, how do you think Shearman & Sterling LLP maintains its competitive advantage? (250)

Shearman & Sterling (Shearman) maintains its competitive advantage in three ways: through leveraging its financial expertise across jurisdictions, fostering long-standing client relationships, and an entrepreneurial spirit.

[Feedback: For these short 250-word answers, we always recommend sticking to a strict PEE/AL (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link) structure for your paragraphs. You have a very limited word count, so deviating from this structure risks your answer devolving into ambiguity.

Here, the candidate has opted to write an introductory paragraph. Whilst this technically goes against our recommendation (we would suggest getting straight into your answer), this introduction serves the candidate’s answer well. At only 26 words, the introduction serves its purpose by outlining the key points that the candidate will address in their answer. The key points mentioned are quite broad, but this cannot be avoided should you choose a short introductory paragraph for this kind of answer (you do not have the word count to expound further at this stage).

Finally, be careful with abridging firm names. Certain firms are fine with it: Herbert Smith Freehills can be called HSF. However, other firms are not: Slaughter and May must be spelt as such. If in doubt, do not abridge the firm’s name. It might save you 5 – 10 words per answer but risking your entirely application for it is not worth it. If you can, speak to someone who knows whether the firm will accept their name being abridged and what specifically it can be shortened to. For example, whilst HSF may be permissible, ‘Herbies’ is not.]

Shearman’s offering of integrated U.S. and English legal services provides a significant advantage over firms that lack such capabilities. Strong ties with American financial institutions mean that Shearman is well-positioned to transfer client relations across borders and cross-sell legal advice. For instance, Shearman has advised Goldman Sachs in both the U.S. and Europe on deals including Natwest Groups $1.97 billion cash tender offers in 2020.

[Feedback: As a quick aside, be careful you are spelling names correctly: ‘Natwest’ is technically spelt ‘NatWest’. Make sure to double-check your answers before submission as certain firms, like Shearman & Sterling, tend to punish candidates for typographical errors (this is one of the least egregious typos, but should still be avoided).

For the most part, this is a very strong paragraph. The candidate follows a strong PEE/AL structure (sans the ‘link’):

1.     Point: S&S has an advantage as they offer integrated U.S. and English legal services.

2.     Explanation/Analysis: S&S has ties with American financial institutions meaning they can transfer client relations between across regions and cross-sell their services.

3.     Evidence: A deal where S&S advised Goldman in both the U.S. and Europe.

You should note the logical structure of the candidate’s answer and how each sentence nicely fits into the PEE/AL structure. They have also written the explanation/analysis prior to their evidence – this is absolutely fine and, in this case, swapping the order makes sense as their point could do with some more clarification, whilst their evidence is self-explanatory.

The only (minor) issue with this paragraph is that it is missing the ‘link’ sentence. Whilst the candidate has done well to explain and evidence their point, they fail to conclude appropriately by telling the reader how the transferring of client relations across borders and cross-selling of legal advice manifests a competitive advantage. It is all well and good to say that this is something that some firms may not be able to do; however, the candidate could have gone the extra step and explained that such features of Shearman’s work improve their client retention/makes them a market leader for certain kinds of transatlantic work (remember, if you were to use these points, remember to get specific evidence).]

Having said that, in a 250-word answer, this is a very strong paragraph – bar the missing ‘link’, this paragraph is a good archetypal answer.

Secondly, Shearman stands out for its Clients First mindset and ability to foster long-standing relationships with global corporations. Shearman’s history advising Citibank dates to the bank’s founding years, while Ford has remained a Shearman client since Shearman advised on the car manufacturers IPO in 1956. As recent as April 2020, Shearman advised on Ford's $8 billion senior notes offering. Such long-established client relationships reflect Shearman’s success adapting to client needs and ensure a consistent stream of high-value work.

[Feedback: Once again, this is a strong answer as a result of its PEE/AL structure and specificity. The candidate has got a fantastic level of detail in their answer, citing not only facts but figures as well. Both this paragraph and the preceding one should serve as an indicator of how much detail a good answer should include.

This paragraph could be improved by including a strong question-focus. You should always check your paragraphs against the question you are answering before submission to make sure you have “hung your answer on the question”. Try to use the question’s phrasing/exact wording in your answer to make sure that the recruiter is under no illusion about whether you have answered the question. Hence, for this answer, the candidate could have rewritten their last sentence to include the words ‘competitive advantage’. This would have not only bolstered their ‘link’ sentence but also ensured they directly addressed the question.]

Finally, Shearman’s growth strategy underscores its entrepreneurial spirit. Shearman was among the first Wall Street firms to expand globally and has benefitted as a first mover into profitable regions. Nonetheless, the firm takes a pragmatic approach to expansion, targeting regions according to business needs. The scaling down of Shearman’s German operations and recent opening of three Texas offices highlight the firm’s targeted strategy in practice. The result is a lean business structure with lower cost bases, giving Shearman a competitive advantage.

[Feedback: Although this paragraph still has a strong PEE/AL structure and a decent level of detail, this paragraph is marginally weaker than the two that precede it. Though the candidate has used facts to evidence their point, there is distinct lack of figures or dates to enhance their paragraph’s specificity (that is present in the rest of their answer). The candidate could have spent a little more time to mention specific dates/changes in revenue to elevate the quality of their answer.

A further point of improvement would be with regard to the last sentence. The candidate cites that a lean business structure with lower cost bases gives S&S a competitive advantage. However, they do not explain why that is the case. Although it might seem self-evident and, therefore, redundant to explain, we would always recommend writing as explicitly as possible. This not only showcases your business knowledge but also convinces the recruiter that you actually know what you are writing about.

Hence, the candidate’s answer would have been served better if the candidate explained that having a leaner business structure with lower cost bases means that the firm maximises their profit margin, meaning that they could do one of two things:

1.     Charge their clients less, still make a healthy profit (other firms which are less profitable must keep their rates high) and, resultantly, poach clients from other firms (as S&S can deliver an excellent service for less).

2.     Charge their clients the ‘normal amount’ – but with higher profits, they can reinvest the capital into the business to improve their services (resultantly, attracting/retaining more clients).

Notwithstanding these points of improvement, we still think that this is a strong paragraph, and suggest that candidates should learn from this candidate’s structure and use of evidence.]

In a competitive legal market, how do you think Shoosmiths can remain successful and attractive to clients in 2020 and beyond without compromising on profitability?

There are many complex issues which may feed into this answer, but we would like you to focus on your top three priorities.

The current impact of COVID-19 has meant that law firms have had to adopt agile methodologies to ensure clients receive the same service they would have prior to the pandemic. In 2020, this will be a key point for Shoosmiths, and as a firm who are focused on providing the best client experience, it will be more important than ever to adapt to the new ways of working. As the country begins to move through different phases throughout 2020 and beyond, a law firm which is able to manoeuvre seamlessly through these changes is vital. It is clear Shoosmiths has already reacted positively, for example, by setting up webinars for different industries on relevant topics and creating a dedicated COVID-19 online hub to provide advice on how COVID-19 impacts clients businesses.

[Feedback: Although the candidate appears to understand the impact of the ongoing pandemic on the business sector, their discussion is not sufficiently tailored to Shoosmiths. Most commercial law firms have set up pandemic-specific sections on their external and internal websites. It is, therefore, unclear how Shoosmiths’ webinars and online hub gives the firm a competitive edge within the legal market.

Note: missing connector at the beginning of the paragraph (e.g., “firstly”), awkward phrasing at “a law firm […] is vital”.

Secondly, embracing legal technology is an important way in which Shoosmiths can remain attractive to clients. The opportunities for technology to be used in the legal sector are growing quicker than ever before, and as highlighted by CEO, Simon Boss, embracing legal technology at Shoosmiths is important to help drive client experience. On a local level, Shoosmiths’ commitment to this in the Leeds City Region can be seen by their partnership work with Leeds City Council on Whitecap Consulting’s analysis of legal technology and innovation. By co-funding this work, Shoosmiths is contributing to innovation in this area across the region, supporting the ambitions for the city to be a leader in legal services.

[Feedback: Legal technology is a complex topic. Despite its growing popularity among candidates, it rarely receives the rigorous analysis it warrants. In this case, the candidate makes a series of generic affirmations about the topic without explaining why clients might be attracted to a law firm that embraces legal technology and innovation. At the very least, they could have discussed the prospect of artificial intelligence driving lawyers’ productivity by taking over their mundane, run-of-the-mill tasks and allowing them to focus on dynamic, tailored tasks. Nonetheless, the candidate does well to cite a firm-specific initiative in support of their claim about the importance of legal technology for Shoosmiths. From the very existence of said initiative, they could have also made an inference as to Shoosmiths’ ability and willingness to further expand its legal technology prowess in order to be more successful/ attract clients.

Note: adjective form used instead of adverb form at “opportunities […] are growing quicker”, incorrect preposition at “Shoosmiths’ commitment […] can be seen by”, unnecessary comma at “CEO, Simon Boss”.

Lastly, a focus on social responsibility and policy issues which go beyond the ordinary work a law firm engages in, will help the firm remain attractive to clients. Clients today are much more in tune with what is going on in the world, and will be a driver and a lever in influencing law firms to adopt a range of practices, such as sustainability. Not only will sustainable practices adopted by the firm be important to clients, but the way in which the firm provides advice in the context of such issues is important. For example, Shoosmiths acts for a number of car manufacturers in the UK, and moving towards electric vehicles is something impacting these clients. Similarly, in the living sector, developers are keen to incorporate environmental principles into any new developments. A law firm that is aware of these issues, and offers a business solution within the context of policy will attract clients.

[Feedback: The rising prominence of ESG matters and sustainability within the commercial world makes for an excellent point of analysis if presented in an engaging and comprehensive manner. Although the candidate is on the right track, their presentation of said point leaves much to be desired. It is unclear what the candidate means by “[c]lients today are much more in tune with what is going on in the world” and why such a state of affairs would influence law firms “to adopt a range of practices”. A few examples of the kind of advice that law firms might provide to clients in terms of ESG matters/ sustainability would have been warranted (e.g., law firms might be called upon to help clients navigate the evolving regulatory patchwork). In this regard, Shoosmiths’ specific ability to help clients would have also deserved more rigorous attention.

Generally, ambiguous writing is often associated with a timid writer who may or may not understand what it is that they are writing about. If you wish to persuade the reader of the contrary, aim to be as specific as possible and (as silly as it may sound) just say what you mean. Do not try to use veiled language or “dress up” your ideas unnecessarily – less is more in this case.

Note: unnecessary commas in various places, incorrect preposition at “Clients […] will be a driver and a lever in influencing law firms”.

In a competitive legal market, how do you think Shoosmiths can remain successful and attractive to clients in 2020 and beyond without compromising on profitability?

There are many complex issues which may feed into this answer, but we would like you to focus on your top three priorities.

Firstly, Shoosmiths could develop clientele experience and build long-term business partnerships by focusing on a cross-selling business model. Cross-selling is the selling of all services offered by Shoosmiths to its clients, to ensure that clients understand that Shoosmiths can meet all of their legal needs, instead of using multiple law firms. For example, Shoosmiths recently utilised its real estate, banking, employment and property litigation departments when acting on behalf of Revolution Bars group. Hence, at initial client meetings such cross-selling of services will allow clients to receive more incisive advice. This will assure clients confidence that Shoosmiths as a whole is committed to their objectives, enabling them to grow with the firm. By encouraging departments to work closely together, staff can continually increase their business development skills, without alternatively needing to hire additional expertise.

[Feedback:  This is a classic question that is common to many firms’ application forms. Therefore, this is a kind of question that you should be prepared to answer and have already researched. Naturally, your answers will vary from firm to firm; however, knowledge of particular areas such as technology, the legal market and corporate social responsibility will be useful across all your responses.

In this first paragraph, the candidate focuses on ‘cross-selling’. The candidate does well to lead with a clear point before quickly explaining what ‘cross-selling’ means. They then give an example of how Shoosmiths would be suited to cross-selling before then linking their answer back to the question at hand. You should note that the candidate employs a variation of the PEEL structure (swapping the evidence and explanation sections’ order). This allows the recruiter to understand easily what the candidate is trying to argue.

Furthermore, the candidate’s inclusion of specific information also helps to bolster the quality of their answer. The candidate cites a specific deal the firm was involved with and specifies the departments that were involved. This is an excellent way to demonstrate knowledge about the firm and to apply the candidate’s argument directly to Shoosmiths.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have selected a unique point of discussion. Although the candidate’s answer is relatively strong, the candidate’s focus on ‘cross-selling’ may be misguided. Virtually every major commercial law firm will have a variety of departments and so could engage in ‘cross-selling’ at ‘initial client meetings’. Therefore, this trait is not unique to Shoosmiths, and it is difficult to see how it would make the firm stand out in a ‘competitive legal market’. Although these kinds of points do not immediately sink an answer, you should note that they may weaken your response. These kinds of questions want you to come up with unique ideas and home in on the unique aspects of the firm you are applying to. Therefore, making claims about the firm’s breadth of departments or services (unless those services are actually unique) is unlikely to be as successful as perhaps thought.

Furthermore, the candidate could have elaborated on their claims in their final few sentences. It is not evident how ‘encouraging departments to work closely together, staff can continually increase their business development skills’. Typically, business development refers to the broader approach of improving a business by virtue of strategic planning and increasing revenue. Therefore, it is not immediately clear how departments working closer together would translate into individuals’ strengthening their business development skills.

Therefore, to improve this answer, the candidate needed to have been more explicit in how they formed this conclusion. You must remember to guide the recruiter step-by-step through your argument, especially if you are trying to present a nuanced conclusion. Once you have finished drafting your answer, you should take a break from looking at it for a few days. Once you return, read over your answer, and see if you can still understand what you were trying to argue. If not, you should amend it, so it is more explicit.]

Secondly, at the Shoosmiths' [redacted] Insight Evening 2020, I learnt how Shoosmiths is currently working on technology-based initiatives such as document automation to do labour intensive document review. Such legal tech adoption will make it more reliable to predict legal efforts so lawyers can focus on the contract areas that need advice. It will enable Shoosmiths to provide more price certainty for clients who are becoming more price-conscious. Therefore, Shoosmiths can add value to the client's experience by providing more accuracy in a shorter period, and by billing on the value of the task rather than the time. Also, lawyers would have more time to focus on securing new work to help meet Shoosmiths' aim of becoming the UK's leading law firm without needing to spend on added recruitment.

[Feedback:  This answer’s focus is on legal technology. This is a very common topic when it comes to answering this question. Therefore, if you choose to discuss legal technology in your response, you must ensure that you include lots of specific detail and have a strong argument. Any weakness in this regard will mean your answer will be bested by other candidates’ responses.

In this paragraph, the candidate does well in including some decent argumentation for why legal technology would improve Shoosmiths’ competitiveness. Importantly, the candidate begins by explaining how they learnt about Shoosmiths’ legal technology initiatives. This is a good start to the answer as it demonstrates that the candidate has taken the time to engage with and research the firm. The candidate then goes on to explain how document automation technology will help Shoosmiths alter their pricing model and free up lawyers to focus on more meaningful tasks. Overall, the candidate has the right idea with this answer. They have articulated the main arguments for the adoption of legal technology and linked it back to the firm’s overall strategy.

To improve this answer, the candidate’s writing could have been clearer. The candidate writes, ‘I learnt how Shoosmiths is currently working on technology-based initiatives such as document automation to do labour intensive document review’. This is a bit clunky and has a stilted tone. This could have been rephrased as follows:

‘I learnt how Shoosmiths is currently working on a technology-based initiative that aims to automate document review tasks which are typically labour-intensive’.

Furthermore, it is not clear what the candidate means by ‘more reliable to predict legal efforts’. It appears as though the candidate has tried to be concise; however, in doing so, they have diminished the clarity of their answer. We would always advocate for depth over breadth. Therefore, if you need to use more words to explain something properly, use those words or cut the point entirely. You should not try to skip over explanations or examples in order to cram in more points of discussion. The recruiter needs to understand what you have written and have found it convincing, otherwise, you may as well have not written it.

Penultimately, the candidate could have explained how they reached the conclusion that the firm would not need to spend more on recruiting additional lawyers. Although it is possible to infer an argument from what the candidate has written (legal technology allows some tasks to be automated, meaning that there are fewer tasks overall which, therefore, means the firm requires fewer lawyers), the candidate does not explicitly make this argument. You must remember to be explicit in your argumentation. There is no guarantee that the recruiter will infer the argument you intend. Hence, you must be precise and explicit in your communication.

Finally, we would recommend avoiding colloquialisms or unnecessary abbreviations. ‘Legal tech’ is simply a more informal way of expressing ‘legal technology’. We would advocate for the use of the latter. An application form is a piece of professional communication, and your writing should be adapted accordingly.]

Thirdly, Shoosmiths could expand upon its active environmental policy. The environment champions within Shoosmiths' offices should continue to encourage employees to turn off lights and power outlets when not in use to reduce electricity bills. Also, staff should be encouraged to use email where possible to enable Shoosmiths further to become a paperless workplace and to minimise resource costs. Hence, overhead costs will reduce. To facilitate this, employees should be engaged in environmental awareness campaigns and could propose new initiatives to ensure continual improvement via Shoosmiths' internal forum. This collaboration would boost staff morale resulting in increased productivity and teamwork to offer clients the best experience. These sustainable incentives would enable Shoosmiths to achieve positive environmental impacts and to demonstrate its ongoing corporate responsibility to clients since clients increasingly want to conduct business with environmentally friendly companies.

[Feedback: This section’s topic is Shoosmiths’ environmental policy. Overall, the answer does well for including specific detail about the firm and for making sound arguments. The candidate does well in detailing some firm-specific information, specifically the firm’s ‘environment champions’ and internal forum. The candidate also makes some good arguments about the reduction of electricity bills and paper usage, which would contribute to an overall decrease in the firm’s expenditure. The candidate goes on to make a further argument about increasing the employees’ morale and appealing to clients.

You should notice how the candidate attempts to walk the reader through their argument step-by-step. The candidate does not immediately jump to the conclusion but, crucially, sentence-by-sentence guides the reader to the conclusion concerning a reduction in overheads. You should also observe how the conclusion is directly linked to the question at hand. You should remember not to be side-tracked when writing your answers. Your conclusion should always be related to the question at hand, and, for this question, the main focus is on competitiveness. When drafting your answers, try to refer directly to the terms of the question. This will ensure that you stay on track and show the recruiter that you have addressed and answered the question fully.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have made their answer flow better. Although the candidate makes some valid points throughout this paragraph, the answer does not read particularly nicely. For example, the candidate punctuates their paragraph with a sentence that reads ‘[h]ence, overhead costs will reduce’. The candidate could have rephrased their answer in a way that would make it easier to read and digest. For example, the candidate could have written:

‘By reducing the amount of electricity and paper consumed, the firm will lower its overheads. It may then, therefore, choose between increasing its profit margin or passing on the savings to its clients.’

Although this version uses more words, it better articulates and concludes the point that the candidate was trying to make. We would recommend writing the first draft of your answers without too much regard for the word limit. You can then always cut it down to fit the requirements. By doing so, you will ensure you preserve the necessary detail and argumentation but remove any unnecessary or unclear statements. This will improve the overall strength and clarity of your answer.

On a similar note, the candidate could have strengthened their argumentation with respect to their last sentence. The candidate makes a claim that the sustainable incentives will attract clients given that clients want to work with environmentally friendly firms. Although this may be true, the candidate could have given some substantiating evidence for this. Many major brands are becoming sensitive to the diversity and environmental impact of the law firms they engage. A good example of this is Coca-Cola’s (scrapped as of March 2022) policy that required the law firms they engaged to use lawyers from diverse backgrounds for at least 30% of the time they were billed. You should always try to bring in evidence to support your claims as this will not only make your answer more persuasive and believable but also demonstrate your commercial awareness.]

If you were asked to advise our management team on one key area for Taylor Vinters to focus on in the next three years, what would that be and why? (250)

With the demand for energy increasing and the need to reduce emissions, companies must evolve to meet future energy needs. Subsequently, I would advise that Taylor Vinters focus on the energy transition to renewables. This is because innovation will be occurring rapidly in this field, and Taylor Vinters expertise lies here. The firm has worked with Thriva, a company developing home blood test kits, and Featurespace, a company using technology to detect financial crimes. Moreover, Taylor Vinters has invested in and shared office space with tech start-up ThoughtRiver to offer RAPID, an automated contract review service. These ventures have shown success, as Shoosmiths and PwC (amongst others) now use RAPID. Furthermore, the Financial Times shortlisted Taylor Vinters in 2019 for theirInnovative Lawyers award. Therefore, focusing on renewable energy is a smart move for Taylor Vinters business and reputation.

Feedback:This is a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate (1) your commercial awareness about how law firms operate as businesses and (2) your research and knowledge about Taylor Vinters’ practice and positioning in the market. 

Whilst the candidate states the issue well, they should have summarised their full answer upfront.  This is a tested communication principle, which is widely used in strategy consulting (see more details here).  For example: “I would advise that Taylor Vinters focus on the energy transition to renewables, given that companies must urgently evolve to meet demands for increased energy and reduced emissions.”

Additionally, the candidate would have benefitted from providing evidence of increased energy demands and requirements to reduce emissions, as well as examples of innovation in this field. This would have lent credibility to their argument and showcased their research into the topic.

In the former part of this paragraph, the candidate’s argument seems to be that there is an opportunity for Taylor Vinters to leverage their expertise in innovation in order to gain an abundance of new work as companies evolve to meet changing energy demands. The candidate then goes on to list examples of the firm’s successful work surrounding innovation in other sectors, demonstrating the research they have undertaken and supporting their argument that Taylor Vinters has expertise in ‘innovation’. But this feels like a non-sequitur.  You cannot readily apply these examples to other sectors, so they do not directly support the candidate’s argument that ‘focusing on renewable energy is a smart move for Taylor Vinters’ business and reputation’.

Instead, the candidate could have stated the actual benefits of focusing on this work, for example: (1) forming relationships with new clients; (2) generating greater revenue for the firm; (3) benefits conferred to society by contributing to the reduction of emissions, and (4) reputational benefits from being an expert in this sector and a champion of corporate social responsibility.

Finally, candidates should avoid grammatical errors, such as in the line ‘Furthermore, the Financial Times shortlisted Taylor Vinters in 2019 for theirInnovative Lawyers award’ [emphasis added]’. Law firms assess your English proficiency throughout your application.  You should carefully proofread your work before submission.  You should ideally review this in hard copy, which is an effective way to catch errors that you may have overlooked when drafting. Even one typo can tip the scales towards the firm rejecting your application.

Working in this field will provide for an exciting challenge for Taylor Vinters, as a move to renewable energy is no simple feat. Large companies might want to buy small firms who have a unique product or expertise (M&A), and any new emerging technologies (electric vehicles, hydrogen) will need liability issues addressed. Additionally, new technologies will need IP as entrepreneurs will want to protect their products or businesses. Furthermore, businesses may need to be restructured to reduce reliance on certain assets and push towards renewables. The firm can leverage its existing relationships with clients, for example, where Elliot Wilson has dealt with aspects of renewable energy in the Real Estate team.

Feedback: The candidate does well here to discuss various legitimate challenges posed by the shift to renewable energy, demonstrating their ability to think critically. They also demonstrate their understanding of law firm practice areas as well as their commercial awareness (specifically their understanding of how this issue will impact the business decisions of various companies). However, it feels like the candidate tries to cram too much into a short section.  We prefer fewer but more developed points .  For example, can the candidate point to relevant M&A transactions which prove their point?  What sort of liability issues are likely to arise from hydrogen gas?  Why do some businesses require restructuring to enable them to achieve Net Zero? 

The candidate does well to give an example of the firm leveraging existing relationships with clients. However, this example would have been stronger and reflected deeper research if specific details were given regarding aspects of renewable energy dealt with by Elliot Wilson.  Finally, even at a small firm like Taylor Vinters, it’s helpful to explain who each person at the firm is if you raise them as an example in your application (e.g. “where Elliot Wilson, a partner at the firm, has considerable experience through his Real Estate practice”)  

What do you think attracts clients to AG as opposed to other firms?

Addleshaw Goddard (‘AG’) possesses several attributes which makes the firm stand out from both its regional international competitors.  These unique selling points have attracted a wide range of clients across a variety of industries – most notably the firm’s position acting for nearly every major UK clearing banks.     

Feedback: There is nothing necessarily wrong with writing a brief introductory sentence or two, as the candidate has done here. However, the candidate starts with a generic sentence before telling the firm something it already knows – namely that it acts for nearly every major UK clearing bank.

We advise that candidates dive straight into their first point. This is particularly true given the tight word count. Also, note that there is no issue in abbreviating the firm’s name in general. The question here specifically permits this. However, you must also check that the law firm you’re applying for allows abbreviations (and if it has a preferred one). For example, you could abbreviate Herbert Smith Freehills to ‘HSF’ but not ‘Herbies’.

AG is set apart by its unique approach to legal technology and is a market leader within this field. The development of AG intelligent delivery has opened doors to a whole new level of possibilities for how legal services are delivered. Compared with its competitors, AG is extremely client focused and works with their clients to understand their business problems and develop the optimal way to moving forward and addressing challenges efficiently and effectively that fits with their corporate strategy. For example, the use of the portfolio management system, Property Revealed, allows AG to help their real estate clients reduce risk and identify opportunity by way of data, to increase efficiency and optimise future events.         

Feedback: This prompt is essentially a “why firm?” question with a commercial awareness tint. You need to focus on the firm’s unique qualities which you believe are important. However, you should note that the qualities must be enticing not for you (as a trainee) but for a new client. As such, the client may be more interested in unique qualities relating to the firm’s work as opposed to its training contract. You should again adopt the PEEL structure in questions like this.

The candidate’s first paragraph focuses on AG’s innovation and alternative legal services delivery. The candidate’s first sentences broadly introduce these two points, before providing specific explanations and evidence to back up their point. In particular, the candidate does well to identify a specific example of AG’s Property Revealed initiative to substantiate their argument and explain how AG’s legal technology approach is unique.

The candidate can also be commended for linking their evidence/explanations back to the clients (in this case, real estate clients) and what it means for them. This is essential. Many candidates write extensively about the firm and its features without explaining why it matters to the client in question. Most crucially, the recruiters want to know what you think clients like about AG – you will eventually be expected to pitch the firm to clients and win work.

To improve, the candidate could provide even more specific names, facts and statistics. The candidate makes a lot of sweeping assertions (such as that Property Revealed has helped real estate clients reduce risk) but has not provided any additional statistics or evidence showing how the system has done this. Furthermore, the candidate claims that legal technology has “opened doors to a whole new level of possibilities” but only offers one example of this for a specific subset of real estate clients. As such, the candidate should write more concisely and cut down on flowery language. For one, the candidate would benefit from cutting out their introductory sentences. Moreover, the candidate can cut down on redundant and flowery language such as “extremely” and “a whole new level of possibilities” to save further words. This provides space in which the candidate can offer specific examples, statistics and evidence to back up their claims.

Consequently, what gives AG a unique character among other law firms is its ability to tailor its services to a client’s needs. The firm demonstrated this when it developed AG Integrate, which allows clients to choose from a pool of highly skilled, self-employed consultants, designed to allow the client access to a wide range of skills and fresh perspectives on an ‘as-needed’ basis. Unlike some competitors, AG Integrate is wholly run within AG itself and so is a fundamental part of the firm. This means that the services offered have a single AG point of contact who knows each client’s business intimately, making the service streamlined to suit the client.

Feedback: Though the candidate writes “consequently” as if this is related to the previous paragraph, the candidate in fact makes a separate point here. Namely, AG is good at tailoring services to a client’s needs. Overall, this is a fair claim and the candidate argues for it clearly and succinctly. You should note that the candidate does well to identify a named example straight away – AG Integrate. The candidate then explains in detail what AG Integrate does and why it benefits clients. Furthermore, the candidate does well to distinguish AG Integrate from competing consultancy platforms in other firms. This demonstrates awareness that other firms offer such platforms, which adds strength to the candidate’s overall argument.

To improve, the candidate should have sharpened their central point further. Whilst it is a selling point that AG can tailor services to its clients needs, this is not unique. All law firms will claim that they can tailor services to a client, and many will have their own consultancy/in-house platforms to back this up. As such, the candidate should have taken a different angle to stress how the firm is different to competitors. They could also have provided specific examples/statistics on how AG Integrate has improved processes, client profitability and/or client costs.

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

Ranked as a top 10 innovative firm by the Financial Times, I would describe AGs unique selling point as being truly innovative. Here, innovation is not merely the responsibility of a separate firm entity. Instead, all staff are encouraged to focus on innovation and submit ideas through established processes throughout the firm. Through such non-hierarchical approach to innovation, clients can be assured it is their lawyers who are directly involved in contributing new ideas to solve their problems, and not the select few within the firm. This, I believe, is a key differentiator between AGs and rival firms approach to innovation.

Furthermore, AG is committed to designing new processes in a strictly client-centric manner. Through the firm's unique consultancy, AG Consulting, the firm works alongside clients’ general counsel and in-house legal teams. In doing so, matters that are unique to each client's needs, such as risk-management, spending analytics and corporate governance, are effectively addressed. Therefore, it is evident the use of innovation is well balanced at AG to ensure clients are the central focus whilst services are delivered in a fully tailored manner.

It is also evident clients’ financial needs is a strong priority at AG. Having invested in improving service delivery processes with the use of legal project management as part of AG’s Intelligent Delivery initiative, clients can benefit from the effectively managed services. This allows for an efficient pricing structure by planning the services in advance. With a strong understanding of clients both legal and business needs, AG is more than a law firm.

Feedback: This is a fun question from the perspective of a law firm client.  The aim of this question is to test how well you understand Addleshaw Goddard’s value propositions and your commercial awareness overall. 

You should use the active voice where possible.  It’s clearer and easier to read.  Phrases like “...clients can be assured..” are better written as “this provides assurance to clients that…”

Think about why particular characteristics matter to clients.  Why should clients care about innovation?  It’s not important to them in the abstract.  The reason why they care is because innovation offers cost-savings.  For example, using contact automation to produce simple contracts reduces the time that lawyers spend drafting each document.  Since most clients pay on a billable hour basis, examples of innovation like automation can reduce the cost of legal services.  The corollary is that the firm’s revenue may also fall - unless it’s a visionary in the space and can win work from other firms’ clients by being forward-thinking and ahead of the curve.

Once you delve down into the innovation point, you see that it’s essentially the same as the final paragraph about how Addleshaw Goddard looks after its clients’ financial needs.  This is a weak point because it’s so vague.  It would be better if the candidate had properly developed point one to include this and then found a standalone value proposition to write about in the final paragraph.

Addleshaw Goddard’s consulting arm is a great thing to talk about, but it’s not enough just to describe its work.  You should take it one step further by explaining what types of clients are likely to use its services.  It’s an add-on service which not all clients will take up.  If you can identify particular industries where clients are likely to want this advice then that will help your answer stand out.]

Finally, “more than a law firm” is a horrible phrase.  It’s corny.  Focus on making great points in a clear fashion and leave the copywriting to your friends in PR.]

Explain one key strategy CMS is implementing to become the leading relationship law firm.

CMS aims to be founded upon positive, productive relationships. One strategy being implemented to achieve this ambition is technology and innovation. Conversations about how technology such as CMS Collaborate and CMS Evidence can be best tailored to clients' needs builds stronger relationships because it demonstrates CMS's willingness to listen to the challenges its clients face. Moreover, CMS Collaborate facilitates synergic relationships between CMS lawyers by allowing teams in varied locations and time zones to share information and documents, reducing friction for cooperation during complex transactions.

Feedback: As with previous answers, the candidate does well to prioritise depth over breadth. By writing just two separate points about one of CMS’s strategies, the candidate gives themselves enough space to analyse each point in depth. The candidate also follows the PEEL/AL structure well in parts of the answer, which in turn makes their writing easier to follow.

One point for improvement in this paragraph is that it should have addressed the “evidence” element of PEEL/AL much more effectively. The candidate name-drops two CMS initiatives and only explains what one of them means (even then, this description is generic). As such, the name-dropped initiatives do not contribute much to the candidate’s overarching argument in this paragraph. The candidate should have concisely explained what each of these initiatives have done for CMS, before (2) providing specific and detailed evidence demonstrating how these have benefits. Then, the candidate should have concluded by (3) linking this evidence back to their arguments/the question (ie how these initiatives have helped CMS become the leading relationship law firm). This evidence is easily accessible online via the firm’s website. For instance, a quick glance at the CMS Collaborate brochure shows quoted client feedback, graphs and statistics showing its key benefits. Had the candidate deployed some of these, then their writing would have been less speculative and more persuasive overall. Given the accessibility of key information on CMS’ website, recruiters will not accept excuses from candidates who fail to make use of it.

Another point for improvement is that this candidate should have cut out flowery language where possible. At times, the candidate uses jargon without properly explaining what it means (such as “synergic relationships”). This makes the candidate’s writing quite confusing and hard to follow. Recruiters are assessing your ability to write concisely and clearly throughout, as this is exactly what commercial clients expect from lawyers. Busy corporate clients do not have time to unpack heavy academic language. In using complex/flowery language, you therefore run the risk that the recruiter disengages with your argument because they do not understand what you are talking about. Recruiters, much like commercial clients, do not have time to open the dictionary every time you use complicated and fancy academic jargon. As such, your writing must get to the point and communicate your arguments as clearly as possible.

The candidate should also have cut out the first sentence if pressed for space (“CMS aims to be founded upon...”. This is a generic sentence that does not help the candidate to answer the question. Instead, we always recommend that candidates get straight to the point by stating their argument outright.

'CMS by Design' exemplifies CMS's innovation. It adds value to clients by devising solutions to legal, regulatory and business challenges through a tripartite process: Identify, Design and Deliver. Each stage entails close collaboration between CMS's teams and the client, meaning resulting innovations are ultimately co-creations. This builds meaningful working relationships as CMS teams and employees of the client are working together towards a common goal. Moreover, 'CMS by Design' promotes goodwill by encouraging an exchange of knowledge, for CMS appears generous in its sharing of technological expertise. As the projects established through 'CMS by Design' are ongoing, with constant monitoring and re-evaluation to improve the product post-implementation, the relationships it forges are long-lasting and substantial.  

Feedback: This paragraph is a slight improvement on the previous because it goes into some more detail about what “CMS by Design” involves. The candidate also provides some good insight into how this initiative promotes innovation at CMS, before explaining how it (in turn) contributes to CMS’ reputation as the leading relationship law firm. This demonstrates that the candidate has understood the question and that they have carried out some wider reading into CMS’ initiatives. The candidate also does well to use the wording of the question directly throughout the paragraph, which in turn makes it clear that they have fully understood what is being asked. We always recommend that candidates use the wording of the question directly, borth in their initial leading point and then throughout their answer. This is a helpful psychological trick that convinces recruiters you have read and understood the question. 

However, the flaw with this paragraph is that it crosses into being descriptive. The candidate spends much of this paragraph making generic descriptive points about the CMS by Design initiative, without analysing thoroughly how this initiative makes CMS the leading relationship firm. This also means that the candidate’s writing comes across as speculative. The paragraph relies on basic assertions about CMS by Design, such as that it “entails close collaboration between CMS and its clients”, without offering specific evidence in support of it. Instead, we would have expected the candidate to research CMS by Design more thoroughly. They should have provided specific statistics, numbers and evidence detailing exactly how CMS by Design has contributed to CMS’ strategy as the leading relationship law firm. In turn, this would have made the candidate’s overall argument much more convincing.

The CMS by Design brochure is available on the firm’s website. It is quickly accessible following a simple Google search. It contains statistics, numbers and details which would have made the candidate’s writing much more thorough here. As a result, CMS’ recruiters would have expected the candidate to read this brochure and make better use of it throughout this paragraph.

Our strategies are driven around our clients and our people. Both go hand in hand, and one cannot succeed without the other. Please tell us what client focus and people focus mean to you, in a successful organisation like Baker McKenzie. Include any personal experience you think may be relevant to these discussions. 

These two ideas are linked by one principle: commerical law is the business of people. Law is an artificial construction made by people. People make the law, break the law, interpret the law, and reform the law.  If you understand the people, then you may understand the law. A client focused approach is a strategy where the client's needs and wants are prioritised. The firm, instead of focusing on hitting certain targets, puts the client first, and will supply the client with a holistic range of services and products to ensure that their business thrives. However, this does not mean foisting upon the client a superfluous range of products. This would only serve to complicate and exploit the client's matters. Client focus means acting with integrity, honesty, and closeness. The client should work closely with the firm, ensuring that they are well informed of all business undertaken by Baker McKenzie. However, for this kind of interaction, there must be trust. The client needs to know and feel that the firm has the client's best intentions at heart. Integrity and honesty, therefore are crucial - not only when dealing with the client, but in the manner in which the firm conducts itself as a whole.

As part of my role as Vice President in Durham Philosophy Society, I had to garner trust from our academic department (the Department of Philosophy) in order to secure funding. In past years, the Society had not been as scrupulous as it should have been: in order to reform its reputation, I had to put our sponsors and clients first. I took the executive decision to merge part of our business with the Department, regularly meeting with them and providing them with evidence and information about every action I took. This slowly allowed a network of trust to be built, and a healthier relationship was formed. The by-product of this, was that we secured the funding, but I cherished the new relationship more. A people focused approach works in tandem with a client focused approach. Focusing on the firm's people is crucial for the success of the firm. A firm is nothing without its employees, and benefits greatly from a diverse range of backgrounds, opinions, and skills.  To enact a people focused approach, employees must feel as though they are able to express themselves and be creative in their approach. They must also feel supported by the firm itself. Team building and morale is important in such a strategy. To me, a people focused approach is about a collective spirit and culture that is formed via the conglomeration of an ecclectic range of individuals. This creates a wonderful phenomenon - clients trust the firm because they know that the Baker McKenzie cultural family works well and will do their best for them. This strategy is present in Pharos Magazine, where I am Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The editorial team works beautifully together: they are all unique, and this difference brings them to work well together.

[Feedback: The candidate has the right idea, but this answer is a bit woolly.  It’s the least strong part of the application.  Part of the difficulty is that it’s hard to distinguish between “client focus” and “people focus”.  We think the key distinction is external vs. internal. 

●      A firm’s client focus is external - it’s about how well you serve your clients, both in terms of the quality, speed and cost of your advice and the way in which you interact with your clients. 

●      A firm’s people focus is internal - it encompasses the culture, quality of work, compensation package and any other operational matter which affects staff retention.

Our preferred approach here is to split your answer into two paragraphs for internal and external.  You should define each, expanding on the information provided here and drawing on the ideas developed by the candidate in his first paragraph.

You should then provide examples of how you have demonstrated each attribute in your extra-curricular activities or work experience to date.  For people focus (internal), we would provide examples of activities which demonstrate teamwork, communication skills and working effectively with others.  For client focus (external), we would provide examples of activities which demonstrate stakeholder management (e.g. negotiating sponsorship) or excellent customer service (e.g., a part-time supermarket job where you deal with customers on a daily basis).   Make sure that you finish each section by tying it back to the firm to explain why your skills will help you become a successful lawyer at Baker McKenzie.

The candidate makes two spelling mistakes in this section “ecclectic” and “commerical”.  These are easily avoided with a spellchecker and should not make it into your final form answer if you have carefully proofread it before submitting.]

What qualities does a future-facing, well-rounded lawyer need to be successful? (200 words)

Future-facing lawyers are capable of anticipating and responding to future challenges. One such challenge is clients increasingly expecting lawyers to adopt cross-disciplinary approaches. This is demonstrated by the Big 4's expansion into the legal sphere: their legal provision has a compound annual growth rate of 8% when the CAGR for legal services more broadly is 4.9%. The Big 4 are attractive because they embed legal expertise into broader business practices, thus their success demonstrates clients' growing demand for lawyers who are both legal experts and commercially adept. Thus to be successful, lawyers must offer legal advice grounded in an understanding of the patterns occurring in their clients' sectors. A well-rounded lawyer thrives under these demands by possessing a thirst for knowledge and the ability to strategically adapt their learning to clients' changing business needs. 

Feedback: This is a typical commercial awareness question where you have to demonstrate (1) sound understanding of what commercial lawyers do and (2) the future trends which will shape the role of commercial lawyers. We advise candidates to follow the PEEL/AL structure for these questions (point, evidence, explanation/analysis, link). You should lead in with (1) your central point (“P”). This will be the backbone of your argument. Then, you should (2) provide specific and detailed evidence in support of your point (“E”) before (3) analysing how that evidence supports your point (“E”/”A”). Finally, you should (4) link your analysis back to your initial point (“L”). This will make your argument well-structured and persuasive. The candidate has done well to follow that structure.

We recommend that you prioritise depth over breadth by identifying 2 points and explaining them in detail. This candidate has been sensible by adopting this approach.

The key strength in this paragraph lies in the depth of evidence used. The candidate identifies a specific trend/example that supports their initial point. They use specific and detailed statistics and percentages, before offering concise analysis on how this evidence supports their point. We are given a persuasive analysis about how the Big 4’s expansion into legal services means that lawyers must match their success to succeed in the future. The candidate has also followed the PEEL/AL structure closely, which makes their writing easier to follow (and so be persuaded by overall).

That said, the weakness in this paragraph lies in its “link”/concluding sentences. The candidate concludes with some generic points about how lawyers must adapt to their clients’ business needs and provide good advice, but it is not clear how these points answer the question (ie about what lawyers of the future need). Lawyers always have needed to have a good grasp of their clients’ sectors and to adapt accordingly, and they will always need this. As such, much of the candidate’s conclusions are redundant and do not answer the question being asked. Instead, you must ensure that your concluding sentences neatly link your analysis/arguments back to your central point. The candidate should have instead explained specifically how they need to match the Big 4 so that they can future-proof themselves against competition. This would have guaranteed that the candidate’s analysis ultimately answered the question in full.

We also recommend that candidates avoid flowery, academic words and instead use language that gets your point across concisely and cleanly. The candidate should have avoided flowery language like “Thus” in favour of more straightforward and modern words. The candidate should also have avoided pretentious language such as “thirst for knowledge” for the same reason. Nobody speaks like this in real life. You are writing a job application, not a novel or an academic thesis.

A well-rounded lawyer is also excellent at forging relationships, an ability founded upon empathy. Understanding and appreciating another's feelings enables lawyers to fully address the concerns and frustrations of clients to provide the highest-quality service; it allows lawyers to recognize when their colleagues might be struggling and offer the appropriate support. This inspires trust between the lawyer, their clients and their colleagues. 

Feedback: This is a weak paragraph overall. First, the candidate’s initial/central point is generic and does not truly answer the question asked. CMS want to find out what you think lawyers of the future will need, on top of the existing skills they already have now. The candidate instead writes generic points about how lawyers need to be empathetic/good at forging relationships. Much of the candidate’s writing follows this same line of reasoning. They spend the paragraph writing about how lawyers need empathy and how it helps them work with clients and colleagues alike. However, lawyers always have needed to be empathetic and good at building relationships, and they will always need this. As such, this paragraph does not answer the question about what future-facing lawyers need to be successful.

Secondly, the candidate does not provide any supporting evidence or examples as they did with the first paragraph. This means that their writing comes across as speculative, and so it is less persuasive overall. You must always ensure that you justify each point with detailed supporting evidence where possible.

To avoid these issues, you must read the question carefully and consider what it is asking. If a firm asks you to consider what a future-facing lawyer needs, then they would expect you to address typical discussion points such as innovation.