How NOT to answer “why law/why commercial law” on a training contract/vacation scheme application
This is one of the key motivation type questions firms pose at the application and/or interview stage.
Here’s an example of a bad answer:
I’m interested in commercial law because I enjoy problem solving and working in teams. When I worked as a customer services representative at a local supermarket in my hometown, I had to resolve customer queries effectively. I also like to help people, which law is all about. In addition, I have developed skills commercial lawyers need, such as communication skills, attention to detail and an ability to work under pressure. Commercial law is also about business: I have built a strong interest in the commercial world from regularly reading the Financial Times and the Economist as well as listening to podcasts. Recently, I attended an insight event at law firm A. This experience was really interesting and thought provoking - it convinced me that being a commercial lawyer was for me. Before university, I also did some informal work experience at law firm B in the commercial department, analysing, amongst other things, a contract. Finally, I enjoyed learning about law at university, and I did particularly well in commercial modules.
Now why is it bad?
It’s competency led. This is a motivational type question - it’s asking about your motivation for a career in law not your skills. In other words, the question isn’t asking you if you have the skills and abilities needed to be a trainee but the actual interest in being a trainee. For example, you may well have the strong analytical skills, research skills and written communication skills needed to be a lawyer but that doesn’t mean to say you’d enjoy a career as a lawyer.
It lists skills. Listing skills anywhere on an application form/cover letter is never a good idea because it doesn’t provide the reader with any evidence that you actually have those skills.
It doesn’t substantiate claims. For instance, it states that they “attended an insight event at law firm A. This experience was really interesting and thought provoking - it convinced me that being a commercial lawyer was for me” but doesn’t explain why the experience was “interesting and thought provoking” or how it convinced them that commercial law was the career for them.
It lacks a chronological narrative. The whole answer jumps backward and forwards in the candidate’s timeline. It doesn’t explain why the candidate went from one experience to the next.
It makes unnecessary or inappropriate statements. Telling a commercial law firm that you’re interested in helping people may set the wrong tone, given that most commercial law firms’ client bases are corporates and financial institutions. If you’re applying to criminal law firms or firms that specialise in negligence claims/public law, telling a firm you like to help people may be more appropriate but you’ll still need to explain what you mean by “help people”. On a different note, telling a recruiter you’re interested in commercial law because you regularly read the Financial Times or The Economist is like saying you want to be a lawyer because you like to read and write emails. It’s not really going to set you apart from other candidates and it’s almost expected that you’re developing your commercial awareness through various resources in the same way firms expect you to be able to read and write.
It doesn’t explain why an experience is relevant. There’s reference to work experience in the commercial department of a law firm but there’s no explanation as to why this supports their motivation to pursuing a career in commercial law. Even if the work experience the candidate refers to is commercial and legal, they still need to explicitly state what they got from their experience which motivated them to pursue a legal career.
It waffles. Here, the candidate has wasted words, saying things like “in my hometown” and “amongst other things”. You need to make every word count, particularly because the word counts are designed to be way less than the actual number of words you need to fully articulate your answer in detail. In addition, the candidate has taken away some of the impact of their answer which comes with writing succinctly. Firms are not only looking at what you write but how you write - they want trainees who can write persuasively and concisely. Law is a precise career, where what’s written down (whether it's in a contract or a court document) can have a significant impact.
I explain what I think makes a good answer to this type of question in this article.