How to answer "Why this firm?" in a training contract or vacation scheme application

The "Why this firm?" question appears on almost every training contract and vacation scheme application form, usually after the "Why commercial law?" section. It is one of the questions recruiters use to filter out generic applications, and it tends to be the section where many candidates lose marks without realising it.

A weak answer to "Why this firm?" reads like flattery. It tells the recruiter that the firm is prestigious, that its lawyers are talented, and that the candidate would be honoured to join. None of this distinguishes the application from the hundreds of others sitting in the same pile.

A strong answer demonstrates that the candidate has done genuine research, has a clear sense of what makes the firm distinctive, and has thought about how their own experiences and ambitions fit with the firm's training structure and culture.

You will usually have around 300 words to make this case, sometimes fewer when the question is combined with "Why commercial law?". Within that limit, the answer needs to be specific, evidenced, and personal.

What this question is actually asking

The question has two parts, and many candidates only address the first one.

The first part is about the firm's work. Recruiters want to see that you understand what the firm actually does, where it is genuinely strong, and why those areas of work appeal to you. References to a firm being international or full-service do little, because almost every City firm could fairly claim the same. The detail that distinguishes a strong answer is specific knowledge of the firm's practice areas, sectors, or signature transactions, and a personal explanation of why those interest you.

The second part is about you and how you would fit into the firm's training structure. Recruiters want to know whether you have thought about what life as a trainee at this particular firm would actually look like. A firm with a small intake of fifteen trainees a year offers a very different experience from one with a hundred, and a firm structured around practice groups offers something different again from one organised by industry sector. The strongest answers connect a candidate's working style or previous experience with the structure and culture of the firm they are applying to.

How to structure your "Why this firm?" answer

A three-part structure tends to work well within the word limit.

Begin by identifying two practice areas or industries where the firm has genuinely strong capabilities. These should be areas the firm is known for, not just ones it happens to mention on its website. Most City firms describe themselves as full service, but each one has a distinct profile of work that becomes clear through proper research.

Move on to explain why those practice areas interest you, drawing on real experiences such as open days, virtual insight programmes, internships, conversations with trainees or associates, or academic work. The link between the firm's strengths and your own interests is the part that turns a generic answer into a tailored one.

Finally, discuss your suitability for the firm's training structure. This is where you connect your working style, your previous experience, or the kind of environment in which you tend to thrive, with the specific way the firm trains its juniors. A candidate who has thrived when given early responsibility will fit a firm with a small intake and lean teams, while a candidate who values structured learning and a large peer group will fit a firm with a larger trainee cohort.

Example of a strong "Why this firm?" answer

Below is an example written for an elite US firm in London with a strong private equity practice. The example is followed by a short explanation of why each section works.

The opening identifies two specific areas of the firm's work.

"Your firm's leveraged finance and private equity practices stand out to me, particularly given the volume of sponsor-side work the London office has handled in the technology and healthcare sectors over the last few years. I was first drawn to private equity through a Forage internship in M&A and a research project on sponsor-led acquisitions during my second year, where I became interested in how funds structure deals to balance returns with operational flexibility for the businesses they acquire."

The candidate has named two genuinely connected practice areas, identified the sectors where the firm's London office is strongest, and grounded their interest in real experiences rather than vague enthusiasm.

The middle section explains the personal connection.

"What appeals to me about your firm specifically is the integration between the leveraged finance and private equity teams. From conversations with two associates at your London open day, I understood that trainees in either group regularly work alongside the other on the same transactions, which means that early-career lawyers gain exposure to both the financing and the corporate sides of a deal. This contrasts with the more compartmentalised approach at some firms and matches the kind of broad commercial training I am looking for."

The candidate has gone beyond the firm's website and used a specific source of information (a conversation with associates at an open day) to draw a comparison with how other firms structure the same work. The reasoning is personal, evidenced, and specific to this firm.

The closing section addresses fit with the training structure.

"The size of your London trainee intake also appeals to me. A smaller cohort of around twenty trainees suggests genuine responsibility from the start, with real exposure to senior lawyers and clients during the training contract. My internship at a financial markets infrastructure firm reinforced that I learn fastest when given substantive work and allowed to take ownership of it, which is the kind of training environment your firm offers. I am drawn to the prospect of qualifying into a team where I can take on demanding work early and contribute meaningfully to deals from the outset."

The candidate has linked a specific feature of the firm (smaller trainee intake) to a personal preference grounded in real experience (substantive work at a previous internship), and has done so without overstating their own seniority or experience.

Example of a weak "Why this firm?" answer

A weaker answer to the same question might read something like this.

"Your firm is widely recognised as one of the leading commercial law firms in London, with an excellent reputation for high quality work across a range of practice areas. I am drawn to the firm's international presence and its track record of advising on complex, high value transactions for some of the world's most sophisticated clients. The collaborative culture and commitment to professional development make it an ideal environment in which to begin my legal career."

The problems become obvious immediately. The candidate does not mention a single practice area, there is no evidence of research beyond the firm's website, and there is no clear personal connection to the firm's work. Phrases like "high quality work", "complex transactions", and "collaborative culture" appear in countless training contract applications and could apply to almost any commercial law firm in the City. As a result, the recruiter learns very little about why this candidate has chosen the firm, or what they would actually contribute as a trainee.

Where most candidates lose marks

A few patterns to avoid when writing your answer.

• Reciting the firm's marketing language. Phrases such as world class, innovative, cutting edge, and trusted advisor are taken directly from firm websites and signal that no independent research has been done.
• Naming a transaction without explaining why it interests you. If you mention that the firm advised on a particular deal, the recruiter wants to know what you found compelling about it and how it connects to your own interests.
• Spending too much of the answer on pro bono work. Pro bono is genuinely important to many firms, but it is difficult to differentiate one firm's pro bono offering from another's, and your words are usually better spent on the firm's core commercial work.
• Implying a narrow scope of interest. Most full-service firms expect trainees to do four seats across different practice areas. Saying you only want to do one type of work suggests a lack of research into how trainees are actually trained.
• Overstating culture. Claiming a deep understanding of the firm's culture after a single virtual event reads as inauthentic. It is better to be honest about the sources of your knowledge and what they taught you.
• Confusing prestige with firm USP. A firm being highly ranked or widely respected is not a reason to want to work there. The reason has to come from something more particular, whether that is the firm's strength in a sector you care about, the size of its trainee intake, or its approach to international work.

Step-by-step guide to answering "Why this firm"

Begin by identifying two genuine areas of strength at the firm you are applying to, using sources beyond the firm's own website. Chambers and Partners, Legal 500, recent press coverage, and the LinkedIn profiles of partners in the relevant practice areas are all useful. The aim is to understand what the firm is actually known for in the market, not just what it claims to do on its homepage.

Next, list the experiences that connect you to those areas. Open days, virtual insight programmes, internships, academic work, conversations with practitioners, and personal interests all count. Pick the two or three that link most directly to the practice areas you have identified.

Finally, draft your answer in three sections matching the structure above, with around 100 words on each of the practice areas, personal connection, and fit with the training structure. The applications that progress to the next stage are the ones written by candidates who have genuinely thought about the firm and can make a specific case for why this firm and not another.