SJT & Video Interview Preparation · City Law
We can help you get to your first seat.
SJTs and recorded video interviews test how you think in professional situations. The First Seat builds that thinking from the ground up, for candidates at every starting point.
Thousands of candidates sit these assessments every year. The ones who do well understand how the firm thinks. We can teach you.
Situational Judgement Tests and recorded video interviews place you in realistic workplace scenarios. The preferred response reflects a specific way of thinking that develops through exposure to professional environments. That experience is exactly what The First Seat is designed to build.
"I had no idea what they actually wanted. I'd done the practice tests, I'd read the values page, and I still couldn't work out why I kept getting it wrong."
Anonymous applicantKnowing that SJTs use most/least ranking won't tell you which response a City firm prefers or why. The format is the easy part.
Whether it's a workload conflict, a client situation, or a colleague dilemma, a consistent professional reasoning framework underpins the preferred answers.
Once you understand how City firms prioritise, scenarios that previously felt arbitrary start to have a clear internal logic. That's what The First Seat teaches.
Through vacation schemes, work placements, and time spent in professional environments, candidates gradually build intuitions about how firms think: when to escalate, how to manage competing demands, what client service actually looks like in practice.
These intuitions are tested directly in SJTs and video interviews. Candidates who have accumulated them find the assessments feel intuitive. Candidates who haven't yet had that exposure find the same assessments feel opaque, even when they're intelligent, hard-working, and genuinely suited to the profession.
Rather than offering more practice questions, The First Seat teaches the professional reasoning framework that makes the questions make sense. Five principles. Worked examples. Clear explanations of why certain responses are preferred.
The goal isn't to help you guess the right answer. It's to build the professional intuition that makes the right answer obvious, quickly, and without needing years of prior exposure to get there.
You don't need a vacation scheme under your belt to think like someone who has one. You need to understand how these environments work and to have practised applying that understanding to realistic scenarios.
These aren't abstract values. They're the operational reasoning behind why certain answers are preferred, derived from how commercial law firms actually work.
Five principles with full explanations. The intellectual core of everything The First Seat does.
A checklist you can apply to any scenario in real time to identify the preferred response with confidence.
Why certain instincts consistently produce lower scores, and what to do instead.
Original SJT-style scenarios with detailed explanations. Currently available to selected beta testers only. Sign up to be considered.
Spanning workload conflicts, client situations, colleague conduct, and ethical dilemmas, each with full explanations.
The recorded interview questions candidates consistently struggle with and what firms are actually looking for.
How reasoning shifts between Magic Circle, Silver Circle, and US firm cultures and what that means for borderline answers.
Submit your responses and receive structured feedback explaining where your reasoning diverged from the preferred response.
The scenarios feel unfamiliar because you haven't been in these situations yet. The First Seat builds the context you need.
Bright and well-prepared academically, but applying to environments you haven't spent time in yet. This bridges that gap.
You spent weeks on a written application and didn't pass the test. You want to understand why and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Preparation that sticks because it's grounded in how City law firms actually work, not tips that expire the moment the test ends.
Leave your details and we'll be in touch when the resource is ready. We're also looking for beta testers to review the content before full launch.
Sign UpNo spam. Just a link when it's ready.
Five principles that make SJT logic intelligible, not as abstract values, but as operational reasoning you can apply to any scenario.
SJT preparation advice typically tells you to read the firm's values page and do practice questions. Neither is useless, but neither gets to the root of why certain answers are preferred. This framework does.
City law firms are commercial enterprises built around client service, professional reputation, and the managed exercise of legal judgment. Those three things create a consistent internal logic that runs through every SJT scenario, regardless of which firm wrote it.
Understanding that logic is the preparation. Once you can see what a scenario is testing and why a particular response aligns with that logic, the correct answer stops feeling arbitrary. You're no longer guessing. You're reasoning.
Client priority is the foundational principle of City law practice. But it doesn't mean compliance or deference. It means protecting the quality of the client's outcome, even when that creates friction internally.
City law firms survive commercially because clients trust them with high-stakes, often confidential work. Every decision a trainee makes sits, directly or indirectly, in the context of protecting or eroding that trust.
Client interest and client preference are not the same thing. A client may want to hear that everything is fine when the honest answer is that there's a risk they need to know about. The preferred response is always to give them accurate, timely information, even when it's uncomfortable.
Delaying difficult news to a client because you're waiting to have all the answers first
Prioritising an internal meeting over a client deadline because a supervisor asked you to attend
Flagging a potential risk to a client promptly, even if it means acknowledging uncertainty
Raising a conflict between a client deadline and an internal commitment early, so it can be resolved properly
Whatever decision best protects the quality and integrity of the client's outcome is almost always the right one, even when it's personally or internally uncomfortable.
Many wrong answers come from two opposite errors: asserting authority you don't yet have, or failing to show the initiative you're expected to demonstrate.
Trainees execute reliably, flag problems early, and learn. They don't make unilateral decisions about client strategy or resolve complex problems independently without telling anyone.
But junior doesn't mean passive. The difference between a strong trainee response and a weak one isn't whether to ask for help. It's the quality of thinking that precedes the ask. "I don't know what to do" is weak. "I've looked at this, I think the options are A or B, I'm leaning toward A for these reasons — does that seem right?" is strong.
Making a judgment call on a client matter without flagging it to a supervisor
Asking for help immediately without first attempting to understand the problem yourself
Attempting the task, identifying the specific point of uncertainty, and raising it with a targeted question
Flagging a problem early with a proposed solution, rather than waiting until it becomes urgent
Your job is to make your supervisor's job easier, which means raising problems early, proposing solutions where you can, and never letting a time-sensitive issue go silent.
Many candidates default to one of two wrong answers when facing competing demands: taking everything on silently, or refusing. Both treat workload as a private problem. In City law, it isn't.
A trainee's capacity is a shared resource. Silently accepting more than you can deliver creates risk for the client, the team, and your own reputation when something is inevitably missed.
The correct response when facing a genuine conflict is to make it visible immediately, to the right person, with the right information. "I currently have X due at Y time. I want to take this on, but can we agree on priority first?" signals competence and protects both supervisors from surprises.
Accepting new work without mentioning an existing deadline conflict
Simply declining new work without explaining the conflict or offering an alternative
Being explicit about the conflict and raising it with the right person before it becomes a problem
Be honest about your workload, be specific about the conflict, and surface it to the right person before it becomes a problem, not after.
In the context of City law, integrity means accuracy over comfort, disclosure over concealment, and consistency between what you say and what you do.
The legal profession has a regulatory dimension most industries don't. Solicitors have professional obligations that sit above their employer's preferences, creating a strong institutional preference for disclosure and correction over concealment, even for minor issues.
In any scenario involving a mistake, the instinct toward disclosure and correction is almost always correct. An answer that involves covering up a problem is almost never the preferred response.
Quietly fixing a mistake without telling a supervisor it occurred
Waiting to see if a potential problem resolves before flagging it
Disclosing a mistake promptly, with a proposed corrective action where possible
In any scenario involving a potential inaccuracy or omission, the default correct answer is disclosure and correction, not concealment, however well-intentioned.
Law firms run on relationships. This isn't a soft cultural nicety. It is how work gets done and how quality is maintained. SJT scenarios that involve people require equal attention to the relationship dimension, not just the task.
Many candidates underweight this because they're focused on resolving the immediate practical problem. But a response that solves the task while damaging a relationship is less preferred than one that does both.
When a supervisor gives unclear instructions, seeking clarification is not a sign of weakness. It's how trainees avoid wasting time producing the wrong thing. When a colleague is struggling, direct and private engagement before escalation is almost always the right instinct.
Escalating a colleague's conduct issue immediately without first speaking to them directly
Making assumptions about ambiguous instructions and proceeding without checking
Seeking clarification on ambiguous instructions rather than guessing and wasting time
Addressing a colleague concern privately and directly before involving a supervisor
How you handle a situation matters as much as the outcome, because in a professional services environment, the relationship always outlasts any single piece of work.
Run every scenario through these in order. The answer that scores highest across all five is almost always the preferred response.
Client — Who is the client, and does this decision protect or compromise the quality of their outcome?
Level — Am I asserting authority I don't have, or failing to show the initiative I should?
Communication — Have I made the right people aware of the right information at the right time?
Integrity — Does any option involve concealing, omitting, or misrepresenting something?
Relationship — Does this option handle the human dimension, or does it solve the task while damaging the relationship?
This section contains worked scenarios with detailed explanations. Enter the access code to continue.
Incorrect code. Please try again.
Want to be a beta tester? Sign up through our form and you may be selected to access the full scenario bank before launch.
Apply to be a beta testerAttempt each scenario before reading the explanation. The goal isn't the right answer. It's understanding why it's right.
You are a trainee in your second week. You are working on a due diligence task for Partner A, due by end of day tomorrow. Mid-morning, Partner B stops by your desk and asks you to draft a short summary of a contract by close of business today. You believe both tasks are doable but only just. You would need to work late and there is real risk the due diligence quality suffers. Partner A is not in the office today.
Accept the contract summary from Partner B and complete both tasks, working late if necessary, without mentioning the conflict to either partner.
Tell Partner B you're currently working on something for Partner A and ask whether they can clarify the urgency, so you can flag the conflict and agree on priority before committing.
Tell Partner B you're too busy and cannot take on anything else today.
Accept the task, do your best on both, and send Partner A a message letting them know the due diligence may be slightly delayed.
B is preferred because it makes the conflict visible immediately and to the right person, before committing to something you may not be able to deliver. Asking Partner B to clarify urgency gives both partners the information they need to make a decision about priority.
D is second. You've accepted the work and flagged the downstream impact to Partner A. It's not ideal because you're committing before confirming priority, but it's transparent, which puts it above A.
A is third. You've attempted both tasks, which shows willingness, but the silent acceptance of risk is the problem. If either piece of work suffers, both partners are surprised.
C is least preferred. A flat refusal with no explanation and no attempt to help resolve the problem closes the door rather than creating a conversation.
You have drafted a section of a client report. Your supervisor has reviewed it and sent it to the client. You subsequently notice that one of the figures you included was taken from an outdated source. The correct figure is different and marginally less favourable for the client's position. The difference is small but real. Your supervisor is currently in a client meeting.
Wait until your supervisor is out of the meeting and tell them immediately, providing the corrected figure.
Assess whether the difference is material enough to matter. If it is small, make a note and mention it to your supervisor later as a minor point.
Send the client a correction email directly, without waiting for your supervisor.
Do nothing for now. The report has already been sent and flagging it may cause unnecessary concern.
A is correct for three reasons. The client has received inaccurate information. The right channel is your supervisor, not a direct client email. You are a trainee, and unilateral client communication correcting a report bypasses a process that exists for good reasons. Waiting until the meeting ends is appropriate since this is urgent but not so urgent it requires interrupting a client meeting.
B is wrong because it introduces a materiality test that isn't yours to apply. Whether an inaccuracy matters is a judgment for your supervisor, not for you to quietly decide.
C is wrong because it bypasses your supervisor entirely. Even if the instinct is correct, acting unilaterally on client communication as a trainee is a serious misstep.
D is least preferred. A client has been given inaccurate information. Doing nothing because the report has already been sent is precisely the kind of concealment-by-inaction that firms take most seriously.
A fellow trainee you work closely with has seemed distracted and is missing internal deadlines. During a team lunch, a senior associate makes a comment implying the trainee has been underperforming. Later that afternoon, you are alone with your colleague. They mention they've been having a difficult time personally but haven't told anyone at the firm.
Listen to your colleague, express that you're sorry to hear it, and suggest they consider speaking to their supervisor or the firm's support resources when they feel ready.
Listen, and then tell your colleague you'll need to let your supervisor know they've been struggling, as the missed deadlines are affecting the team.
Listen sympathetically and say nothing further. It's not your place to get involved in a colleague's personal situation.
After the conversation, go straight to your supervisor to flag that your colleague has personal issues affecting their work.
A is preferred because it handles the human dimension appropriately. You listen and point toward constructive support without overstepping or disengaging entirely.
B is second. It's honest about the professional reality, but announcing your intention to inform a supervisor removes your colleague's agency entirely before they've had a chance to address it themselves.
C is third. Listening sympathetically is right, but saying nothing further isn't neutral when a colleague has indicated they're struggling and the professional impact is already visible.
D is least preferred because it escalates immediately and without your colleague's knowledge, based on a private conversation they initiated. Going directly to a supervisor before the colleague has any opportunity to address it themselves is a breach of the relational dimension this scenario is testing.
Spanning video interview questions, ethical dilemmas, client conflict situations, and more, each with full explanations grounded in the framework.
Sign Up to Be NotifiedThe First Seat is an early-stage project. We're looking for people who want to help shape it, test it, and make it better.
The First Seat was created by a final year law student and future trainee who went through the City law application process and couldn't find a resource that actually explained the reasoning behind SJTs. The standard advice was always the same: do practice tests, read the values page. Neither helped with the part that was actually hard.
This is the resource that didn't exist.
The product is still being built, which means there's a real opportunity to shape what it becomes. If any of the below sounds like you, we'd love to hear from you.
We're looking for candidates currently applying for training contracts to test the content and tell us honestly whether it works. Beta testers get early access to the scenario bank before public launch. Sign up through the form below and we'll be in touch if you're selected.
If you've sat a City law firm SJT or recorded video interview recently, a 20-minute conversation with you would directly shape what we build. We're particularly interested in the moments that stumped you, the resources you tried, and what you wish had existed. No preparation needed. Just honesty.
If you're a current trainee, a recently qualified solicitor, or someone with direct knowledge of City law recruitment, we'd welcome a conversation about the content. The framework needs to be accurate. If you can help us verify it, we'd be grateful.
For any of the above, or anything else, reach out directly.
We read everything.
thefirstseatuk@gmail.com