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. The First Seat is designed to build that exposure.
"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 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. Candidates who have them find the assessments intuitive. Those 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. Seven attributes. Worked examples. Clear explanations grounded in how City law firms actually operate.
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 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.
Seven attributes with full explanations grounded in how City law firms actually work.
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.
Interactive SJT ranking questions, preference scales, and applied reasoning questions. The answer logic is based on conversations with successful candidates and will be refined as more information becomes available.
Record answers in-browser, review them against a checklist, and practise with rotating questions that mirror common training contract formats.
Interactive proofreading tasks ranging from internal emails to longer technical reports.
Automated feedback on structure, clarity, delivery, and content, alongside a larger bank of interview questions.
Expanded sets of questions across all three formats, including more scenario variation and deeper answer explanations.
Applied reasoning questions using tables and graphs, plus optional timers for proofreading and SJT sections.
Candidate interviews on how they prepared for SJTs and video interviews, what worked, and what they would do differently.
The scenarios feel unfamiliar because you haven't been in these situations yet. The First Seat builds the context you need.
Academically well-prepared, but applying to environments you haven't spent time in. 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.
No spam. Just a link when it's ready.
Seven attributes. All of them mean something specific at trainee level — and that specificity is what most SJT preparation misses.
Every firm weights these attributes differently. A firm that lists innovation as a core value will reward a different instinct in certain scenarios than one that leads with client service or teamwork. Before sitting any SJT, spend time on the firm's website. Look at the specific language they use to describe what they value. The attributes here are consistent across City law, but the emphasis varies.
Most SJT preparation focuses on tactics. Read the options carefully. Eliminate the obviously wrong answers. Think about what the firm wants to hear. The problem with that approach is that it treats SJTs as a puzzle to be decoded rather than a test of something real.
This framework is an attempt to explain what firms are actually looking for and why, so that when you encounter a scenario you have never seen before, you have a way of reasoning through it rather than guessing.
One thing to hold in mind before reading further: every attribute on this page means something specific at trainee level. Collaboration means something different for a trainee than it does for a partner. Drive looks different at the bottom of a hierarchy than it does at the top. The most common mistake candidates make in SJTs is answering as themselves rather than as a trainee solicitor.
The situation — the deal, the case, the client relationship — belongs to someone more senior. Your job is to execute your part of it well, flag anything that needs flagging, and not take actions above your authority without checking. This is why the answer that involves going to your supervisor is so often correct: not because supervisors are always right, but because a trainee who acts unilaterally — even correctly — has created a transparency problem.
Collaboration at trainee level is less about working well with people you like and more about staying effective with people you didn't choose, across every level of the hierarchy.
At university, collaboration usually means a group project with peers. Everyone is roughly equal, the stakes are manageable, and if someone is difficult you can work around them. In a law firm, collaboration is more demanding than that. You will work with partners who have little time for you, clients who are stressed and occasionally unreasonable, and paralegals or support staff who may not respond the way you expect.
There are two things collaboration specifically requires at trainee level that students often miss. The first is keeping people informed — in a law firm, surprises are almost always bad. The second is adapting your approach to the person rather than expecting them to adapt to you. A difficult colleague is a problem to be solved before it is a grievance to be escalated.
Copying a supervisor into an email chain, or going over someone's head, before you have tried a direct conversation.
A direct, non-confrontational conversation first — escalation only when that has failed or is genuinely not possible.
Firms are not looking for someone who already knows the answer — they are looking for someone who knows how to find it, and is honest about where that process stops.
In a professional setting, intellectual curiosity is about how you approach a task you don't already know how to do. Do you use available resources before asking for help? Do you ask precise questions when you do need guidance, rather than broad ones? A trainee who receives an unfamiliar task and immediately asks their supervisor how to do it is not demonstrating curiosity. A trainee who searches the precedent database, makes a genuine attempt, and then flags specific areas of uncertainty is.
There is also a dimension of intellectual honesty in this attribute that is easy to overlook. The correct answer in many SJT text-based questions is the one that stays within what the document actually says, rather than inferring beyond it. Knowing when you don't have enough information to answer something, and saying so clearly rather than guessing, is a form of intellectual rigour that law firms value.
Answering a question based on what sounds legally plausible rather than what the text in front of you actually says.
Using what you have been given, flagging the limits of what you can conclude from it, and being precise about the difference between what you know and what you are inferring.
Taking initiative at trainee level means attempting things within your authority — not making decisions above it.
Drive, to most high-achieving students, means doing more: taking on extra work, going beyond the brief, finding a better way. Those qualities are not wrong, but they need to be applied carefully at trainee level. You attempt tasks rather than waiting to be told exactly how to do them. You flag problems early rather than hoping they resolve themselves. None of those things involve going beyond your authority.
Where drive becomes a problem is when it tips into acting unilaterally on things that are not yours to decide. Sending an amendment to the other side without the supervising associate's knowledge. Giving a client a substantive update without checking with your supervisor first. All of those things might be motivated by initiative, but they create transparency problems that outweigh whatever benefit the action produced. A useful test: does the action you are considering affect anyone other than yourself? If it does, the person responsible for that outcome needs to know about it before you act.
Acting first and informing your supervisor afterwards, on the basis that you were trying to be helpful.
Flagging first, acting after — unless the window for action is genuinely closing and the supervisor is genuinely unreachable.
Resilience is not about being unaffected by setbacks — it is about what you do in the first sixty seconds after something goes wrong.
In scenario-based questions, resilience shows up in much more practical terms. The trial bundle is missing an exhibit. The client has complained and your partner is unreachable. The deal has produced an unexpected finding an hour before the report is due. In each of those situations, what firms are testing is not whether you feel calm. It is whether you make a plan. Specifically: do you identify the immediate options available to you, prioritise the one that prevents the most damage, and escalate appropriately rather than freezing?
There is also a version of resilience that comes up less obviously in SJTs: how you respond to critical feedback. The wrong response is either to accept without engaging — which suggests passivity — or to push back in writing, which tends to read as defensive even when it is not intended that way. The right response is to ask for a conversation and treat the feedback as information rather than a judgment.
Sending a summary of the problem by email and waiting for a response before taking any action.
Identifying the closing window, escalating by the fastest available channel, and acting within your authority if escalation fails before that window closes.
You will almost always have more work than you can do perfectly — the skill is knowing which imperfection matters least, and telling people early when something is at risk.
Organisation in an academic context is largely a personal skill. You manage your own deadlines, and if you submit something late, the main person affected is you. In a law firm, your work sits inside someone else's timeline. If your research is late, the associate cannot finalise their advice. Organisation is therefore not just about managing your own workload — it is about managing it in a way that does not create problems for the people who depend on your output.
When competing demands arrive, your first move should be to understand the real deadline on each of them before deciding what to do next. "As soon as possible" from a partner does not necessarily mean drop everything. And if a deadline is going to be missed, the right time to say so is before the deadline, not at the point of delivery. Flagging that you might not meet a deadline can feel like admitting failure. In practice, it gives people options. Saying nothing removes them.
Working through the night to deliver everything on time without telling anyone the situation was difficult.
Surfacing the conflict early, getting clear information about priorities, and communicating proactively if something is at risk.
In legal work, an error is not just a mark deducted — it is a risk transferred to someone who did not know they were taking it.
This is the attribute where legal work differs most sharply from almost every other context students have worked in. A strong essay with a few minor errors is still a strong essay. A contract with an incorrect date, a wrong party name, or an ambiguous clause can have consequences that no amount of subsequent correction fully undoes. The client relied on the document. The other side relied on it. A court may rely on it. The standard for accuracy in legal work is not mostly right.
The instinct to fix a small error yourself without mentioning it is usually right for genuinely minor things — a formatting issue or a typo in a draft that has not left the office. It becomes the wrong call the moment the error might indicate something more substantive. When you are not sure which category something falls into, err toward flagging it.
Including something in a document without comment because the supervisor will review it anyway.
If you are uncertain whether something is an error, treat it as one until you have confirmed otherwise.
Commercial awareness for a trainee is not about knowing which firms advised on the largest deal last year — it is about understanding that every decision you make in a law firm has a cost, and that cost ultimately falls on the client.
Commercial awareness is probably the most over-discussed and least well-understood concept in City law applications. For SJTs, it shows up in a much more specific and practical way: efficiency and proportionality. Is the action you are considering an efficient use of time? A trainee who spends two hours researching a point that would have taken a senior associate five minutes to answer has not been thorough — they have been inefficient, and that inefficiency has a cost.
There is also a client dimension to this. Clients are paying for the firm's time. When you consider how to handle a situation in an SJT, the question of what this means for the client's experience of being advised is always worth asking, even when the scenario does not mention the client directly.
Treating thoroughness as automatically good, regardless of how much time it consumes.
Asking whether the time and effort you are about to spend is proportionate to the value it produces for the matter.
Run every scenario through these in order. The answer that scores highest across all five is almost always the preferred response.
Try Practice ScenariosClient — 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 SJT scenarios, proofreading exercises, and video interview practice. Enter the access code to continue.
Incorrect code. Try again.
Don't have a code? Sign up to be considered as a beta tester.
Apply for beta accessRead each situation carefully. Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit to see if your order is correct and why. Each scenario is mapped to one or more framework attributes so you can trace the reasoning.
These answer explanations are based on conversations with different successful candidates and are the best current view of how the reasoning works. They may be refined later if better information becomes available.
You are a first-seat trainee in the Corporate team. A partner asks you to draft a termination clause for a share purchase agreement by 3pm, two hours away. You have read termination clauses before but have never drafted one. The partner has gone into a meeting.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first because it does what the framework describes as intellectual curiosity: use available resources, make a genuine attempt, and flag specific areas of uncertainty. The precedent database is a direct resource — using it means you start immediately and bring something concrete to the partner rather than a question.
B is close and not wrong. Getting a brief steer from an experienced peer is sensible. It falls below A because it introduces a dependency on someone else's availability. A starts immediately.
C sounds collaborative but misses something important. The partner asked you to do this task. Passing it to a colleague means the partner does not know the work has changed hands — a transparency problem, even with good intentions.
D is last. Doing nothing with a two-hour deadline and an available resource is the opposite of the initiative the framework describes.
You are a trainee in the Real Estate team. A client calls your direct line asking for an update on the title search for their property acquisition. Your supervising associate has specifically asked not to be contacted today as they are in back-to-back court hearings. You were handed the file yesterday and have not been fully briefed. The client sounds impatient and mentions they have a board meeting this afternoon where this matter will come up.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first because it buys legitimate time without leaving the client unacknowledged. An hour to review the file is credible and professional. It keeps the situation in your hands rather than creating a dependency on a supervisor who has asked not to be contacted.
D is close. A frustrated client with an afternoon board meeting is exactly the kind of development a supervisor would want to know about. A is still first because reviewing the file means you might handle it without interrupting the associate at all.
B is risky. Giving an update pieced together from a file you were handed yesterday risks transferring a risk to the client they do not know they are taking.
C is last. Telling an impatient client with a time-sensitive board meeting to send an email is deflection, not client management.
You are a trainee in the Finance team. You have spotted what looks like an error in the interest rate calculation in a facility agreement sent to the borrower's solicitors 45 minutes ago. Completion is at 9am tomorrow. The error may or may not be material — the drafting is complex — but it could affect the repayment structure. Your supervising associate is at their desk.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first — only because of the specific facts. With completion at 9am tomorrow, the associate needs maximum time. Every minute you spend on your own analysis is a minute they do not have. The associate knows this document better than you and will assess it faster. Going immediately is correct prioritisation, not a failure of initiative.
B is genuinely close and is the answer most candidates with good instincts choose. Preliminary review before escalating is right in most situations. Here, the time constraint changes the calculus. If completion were three days away, B would be first.
C is a significant overstep. Sending an amendment to the other side on a live deal without the associate's knowledge is not your call to make.
D is last. Hoping the other side does not notice before a 9am completion is not a professional position.
It is Tuesday morning. You have three pieces of work due by end of week from your supervising associate. A partner, senior to your associate, stops by your desk and asks you to research a point of law for a separate matter. They say they need it "as soon as possible" and walk away before you can ask anything further. You have not spoken to your associate yet today.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first because it gets the right information from the right source. Going back with a direct, respectful question takes thirty seconds and gives you the one piece of information that makes every subsequent decision easier. "As soon as possible" without a time is not a deadline.
B is close — your associate needs to know about competing demands. The reason B falls below A is sequence: going to your associate before clarifying the partner's actual deadline means you are creating a conversation based on incomplete information.
C applies a real heuristic — seniority means priority — in the wrong situation. Acting immediately risks deprioritising committed work without knowing whether that trade-off was necessary.
D goes to the other extreme. Assuming you will get to a partner's request eventually is not a plan.
You are a trainee in the Disputes team drafting a chronology for a case. A paralegal holds correspondence files you need. You have emailed them twice this week. They have read both emails but have not replied. Your chronology is due to the partner on Friday. It is Wednesday afternoon. You and the paralegal sit in the same office.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first. The paralegal may be overwhelmed, unclear about what you need, or simply bad at email. A friendly direct conversation resolves all of that ambiguity immediately. The framework's point about adapting your approach to the person applies here.
B is close and involves the right instinct. The reason it is second is that you have not yet tried the most direct route. Escalation should follow a failed direct attempt, not substitute for one.
C adds urgency to a channel that has already failed twice. A third email is unlikely to produce a different result.
D accepts a suboptimal outcome without exhausting the available options first.
It is Thursday afternoon and you have finished your work ahead of schedule. Your supervising associate is in a client meeting until 5pm. A senior associate from a different practice group stops by and asks if you can help them review board minutes for the next hour. They mention a partner in their group has approved the request. Your supervising associate has a reputation for being particular about how your time is allocated.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first. A quick message takes thirty seconds and keeps your associate informed. Knowing they care about time allocation is an additional reason to tell them — not a reason to avoid it.
B is second and not wrong in a vacuum. You have capacity and partner clearance. The reason it falls below A is the supervisor's known preference — proceeding without telling them is a choice to avoid a potential "no" rather than a genuine judgment that the message is unnecessary.
C is overly cautious. Waiting until 5pm for the sake of a message that takes thirty seconds creates friction without adding value.
D removes you from the equation entirely and creates more friction than it solves without good reason.
You are conducting due diligence on a target company for an acquisition. You find a contract that may contain a change of control clause, potentially allowing the counterparty to terminate if the acquisition completes. The drafting is genuinely ambiguous and you are not confident in your interpretation. The due diligence report is due tomorrow morning and your supervising associate is currently in their office.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first because the associate is in their office. Raising a potentially material finding today gives them maximum time to assess it. Flagging early is correct prioritisation of a risk above your authority to resolve alone.
B is second and the right answer if the associate is not available. Flagging clearly with an explicit note for senior review is professional. It falls below A simply because the scenario specifies the associate is available.
C is third, not last. Omitting something uncertain is better than including it in a way that implies you reviewed it and found no issue.
D is last. Including your conclusion without flagging it for review means there is no safety net on a potentially deal-breaking issue.
It is 6:15pm. You have discovered the trial bundle you submitted to court this afternoon is missing Exhibit 7, a key witness statement. The hearing is at 10am tomorrow. Your supervising associate has left the office. You have tried calling and they have not picked up. You have access to an accurate copy. The court's electronic filing system accepts submissions until 9pm tonight.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
B is first because the associate is not picking up and the 9pm window is closing. Acting within your authority to fix your mistake and immediately notifying is acceptable when the window is genuinely closing and the supervisor is genuinely unreachable. The resubmission is a bounded, correctable action. Missing the window is not.
A is close. Keep trying while preparing a clear summary is the right instinct. The reason B edges it is that A does not commit to acting before the deadline. If the associate does not respond by 8:50pm, A produces the same outcome as doing nothing.
C is the inaction trap. If the associate does not check email before 9pm, the window closes regardless of how thorough your summary was.
D is avoidance. The assumption that options will exist in the morning is not supported by the scenario.
You are a trainee in the Corporate team. A client emails you directly expressing frustration that their merger has been dragging on for months and asking for a clear timeline. The supervising associate on the deal has a standing instruction that all client communications on this matter go through them. The associate is reachable but is in meetings until 3pm. It is 9am.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first because it handles both pressures at once. A brief acknowledgement is professional courtesy that prevents the client's frustration from compounding over six hours. It respects the spirit of the associate's instruction while ensuring the client does not feel ignored. Forwarding with a suggested response gives the associate everything they need to act quickly.
C is second. Calling the associate despite the meetings is reasonable — a frustrated client is exactly the kind of development a supervisor would want to know about. C falls below A because A handles the immediate client-facing need without requiring anyone to be interrupted.
B is an over-literal reading of the associate's instruction. Six hours of silence to an already-frustrated client is not what the instruction was designed to create.
D is the most dangerous option regardless of the provisional caveat. Providing a self-constructed timeline on an ongoing merger requires the associate's sign-off before you act.
You are sitting in on a client call to take notes. The discussion is about whether a particular restructuring approach carries regulatory risk. The partner has been leading the call. There is a brief pause and the partner turns to you: "You looked into the regulatory landscape last week — what is your answer?" The client is listening. You were supposed to do research on this, but you were overwhelmed with work and only managed to partially complete it. You do have an opinion based on what you know, but do not know whether your conclusion is accurate with what your partner wants to tell the client.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first. Sharing your view with honest framing — your understanding from the research rather than a firm conclusion — engages with what was asked, positions your answer accurately within the hierarchy of advice, and gives the partner something to build on. Being precise about the difference between what you know and what you are inferring is rigour, not weakness.
D is second rather than C. Presenting the landscape without a conclusion is a partial response, but more useful than declining entirely and doesn't risk contradicting the partner's line.
C is third. Declining to comment sidesteps a direct question from the partner in front of the client. The partner knew you had done this research when they asked.
B is last. Giving an unqualified view when you do not know whether it aligns with the line the partner has been running risks contradicting your partner in front of a client.
Your supervising associate returns a piece of legal research with a note saying it "missed the key point." You have re-read your work and genuinely believe it was responsive to the question as you understood it. Looking back at the original email, the question was ambiguously worded — it could reasonably be read two different ways, and you answered one of them.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first. Asking for a ten-minute conversation treats the feedback as something worth understanding rather than something to accept or reject. It creates a space where the ambiguity can be surfaced without reading as a complaint, and gives the associate the opportunity to explain what they actually needed.
B is second and not wrong. Raising the ambiguity directly, with evidence, is honest and professional. The reason it falls below A is the medium — written pushback tends to read as defensive in a way that the same words in a conversation do not.
D is third. Accepting the feedback and asking better questions next time reflects genuine learning. It falls below B because it does not address the underlying ambiguity.
C is last. Guessing what the associate wanted and redoing the work without any conversation means you might produce a second piece that also misses the mark.
A fellow trainee tells you in confidence that they have been struggling badly for the past three weeks, missing internal deadlines and asking colleagues to cover without explanation. They are dealing with a difficult personal situation and ask you not to tell anyone. Later that day, you are copied on an email where a partner has flagged concerns about the quality of work on a matter your colleague has been leading.
Drag the options to rank them from most to least effective, then submit.
A is first because the partner's email changes the situation materially. Your colleague needs to know the situation has escalated — and they need that information from you today, while they still have the opportunity to get ahead of it. A treats them as an adult, honours the spirit of their confidence, and points them toward the right support.
C is a strong second. Seeking anonymous advice from HR is measured and does not breach confidence. It is second rather than first because urgency matters — the partner's email means the situation is already visible.
B was more defensible before the partner's email. After it, staying silent entirely means the situation escalates without your colleague having any opportunity to address it.
D is least preferred. A direct breach of confidence with no attempt to give your colleague a chance to handle it themselves first.
More scenarios, formats, and video questions are being added. Sign up to be notified when new content goes live.
Sign up to be notifiedThese questions don't have a single correct answer. They surface your instinctive preferences and give you honest feedback on where those preferences sit relative to what a City law firm environment tends to reward. Use them to calibrate your instincts, not to memorise a position.
Where do you naturally sit between these two?
This pair looks like it should sit in the middle — and for most professions, it does. In legal work, it doesn't. A document with an error that was produced quickly is worse than a slower document that is right. Clients pay for correctness, and errors in legal documents can have consequences that no amount of speed compensates for.
Most City law firms would expect candidates to sit noticeably toward Accuracy — not at the extreme, because deadlines are real and speed matters, but close enough that Accuracy is clearly the priority when the two genuinely conflict. If your instinct sits at the centre or toward Efficiency, ask yourself: in a context where a missed word in a clause can change the meaning of a contract, what does "efficient enough" actually mean?
Where do you naturally sit between these two?
Independence is a quality firms say they want — and they do, up to a point. A trainee who attempts tasks, uses available resources, and doesn't ask unnecessary questions is valued. But a trainee who never asks, never flags uncertainty, and works entirely alone on matters that affect clients and colleagues is a liability.
The professional default in a law firm sits toward Collaboration — not at the extreme, but clearly past the centre. The hierarchy exists for a reason. If you placed yourself toward Independence, think about whether that instinct is about confidence in your own judgment, or discomfort asking for help. The latter is worth examining.
Where do you naturally sit between these two?
Law firms are, by design, risk-averse institutions. Their job is to identify, manage, and reduce risk on behalf of clients. A candidate who leans strongly toward Risk-taking is signalling an instinct that runs against the grain of most legal work.
That doesn't mean Caution at the extreme is right either. Over-caution in a trainee produces someone who won't attempt a task without being told exactly how, and who flags everything regardless of whether it needs flagging. The professional default sits toward Caution — but not at the far end. Cautious enough to flag genuine uncertainty and avoid unilateral decisions above your authority; confident enough to attempt work and make reasonable judgments without constant supervision.
Where do you naturally sit between these two?
This one catches people out. "Finding a better way" sounds like exactly what a modern law firm would want — innovative, entrepreneurial, forward-thinking. And firms do say they value this.
But there is a difference between suggesting improvements through the right channels and deciding unilaterally that your way is better. The professional default sits toward Following established process, particularly early in a career when you don't yet have enough context to know why a process exists. The appropriate moment to suggest a better way is after you have understood the current one — and through a conversation, not by just doing it differently. If you placed yourself strongly toward "Finding a better way," ask: would your supervisor know you had changed the approach?
A task turns out to be significantly more complex than the brief suggested. Where do you lean?
The instinct to push through and deliver on time is understandable — and often admirable. But on a legal matter, submitting work that has unresolved complexity without flagging it in advance puts the burden of discovery on your supervisor, who may not have time to catch it before it matters.
The professional default sits toward flagging it to your supervisor — not because you can't handle difficult work, but because your supervisor needs to know a task has turned out more complex than expected. They may have context that resolves it in five minutes. The key phrase is "in advance." Flagging at the point of submission is better than not flagging at all — but it is not the same as flagging early enough for anyone to do something about it.
A client asks you something you are not sure about. Where do you lean?
Both responses are professional. "I'll find out and come back to you" is safe and honest. It never risks giving wrong information. "Here's my current view, I'll confirm" gives the client something immediately useful. The risk is that your current view is wrong and they act on it before you correct it.
The professional default for a trainee sits toward "I'll find out and come back to you" — because the downside of a wrong view acted upon is worse than the downside of a slight delay. But a strong lean toward this end can signal an instinct to avoid commitment. The best answer in practice is usually "I'll find out and come back to you within the hour" — specificity about the callback is what separates a professional response from a deflection.
You notice a small formatting inconsistency in a document about to be sent to a client. Where do you lean?
This one is designed to sit closer to the left than students expect. Fixing an obvious, minor formatting error before a document goes to a client — without flagging it as a significant event — is generally the right call. It is exactly the kind of small, self-directed judgment a trainee is expected to exercise. Flagging every minor correction creates noise and suggests you lack confidence in basic decisions.
The caveat is the word "small." The scale changes completely if the inconsistency might indicate a more substantive error — a wrong party name, an incorrect date, a clause that appears twice. The skill being tested is the judgment to distinguish between the two. If you placed yourself strongly toward "flag it to your supervisor," ask whether that instinct is about caution or about avoiding responsibility for a decision.
Your supervisor gives you a brief that could be interpreted two ways. Where do you lean?
This is genuinely context-dependent — which is the point. The right position changes based on how much time you have, how different the two interpretations are in outcome, and how accessible your supervisor is.
For most trainees, the professional default sits slightly toward asking for clarification — but not at the extreme. Going back with a specific, targeted question takes thirty seconds and costs nothing. Completing two hours of work on the wrong interpretation costs considerably more. The case for the left side: if the interpretations are close in outcome, or the deadline doesn't allow for a back-and-forth, making a reasonable judgment and flagging your interpretation at the start — "I've approached this as X, please let me know if you meant Y" — is the professional equivalent of asking. Sitting at the far left — never asking, always assuming — is the riskier position for a trainee who doesn't yet have enough context.
A task turns out to be significantly more complex than the brief suggested. Where do you lean?
Both ends of this scale reflect real risks. Submitting work you don't think is ready is obviously problematic. But consistently missing or pushing deadlines because you want more time is equally so — perhaps more so in a legal context, where deadlines are often fixed by courts, contracts, or clients.
The professional default sits toward the deadline end — not at the extreme, but clearly past the centre. A piece of work submitted on time at 85% is usually more valuable than a piece of work submitted late at 95%. The person waiting for your work has their own deadlines. The more important question this scale surfaces: if you consistently feel your work isn't ready by the deadline, is that a quality standard issue, a time management issue, or a brief-taking issue?
You are working on a group project and realise you could produce a significantly better output if you worked on your section independently rather than coordinating with the group. Where do you lean?
This is the scale where the professional position is clearest — and also the one where it most conflicts with how high-performing students are used to working. Academic success often rewards independent, high-quality individual output. Law firms don't work that way.
The professional default sits clearly toward continued coordination. Not because your individual judgment is wrong, but because in a collaborative environment, the decision to work independently — without discussing it — is not yours to make unilaterally. A stronger individual section that doesn't fit with the rest of the document creates more problems than a slightly weaker section that integrates well. The right version of your instinct here is to raise it: "I think I could take this section in a direction that might strengthen the overall output — would it be useful to talk through it?"
Text-based and data-based MCQ questions. Read the extract or table carefully, then select your answer and submit to see whether it is correct. These questions test the same analytical skills used in written assessments: staying within what the text actually says, making calculations accurately, and not introducing uncertainty that isn't in the question.
Has the filing deadline been met?
Your supervising associate forwards you a CPR practice direction and the following facts, asking you to confirm whether the deadline has been met.
"Where a party wishes to rely on a witness statement at trial, the statement must be filed and served on all other parties not less than 21 days before the date fixed for trial."
The trial is listed for 15 May. The witness statement was filed and served on 25 April.
B is correct. Count the days: 25 April to 15 May. April has 30 days, so 25 April to 30 April = 5 days, plus 15 days in May = 20 days total. The requirement is "not less than 21 days before trial," meaning the statement needed to be filed by 24 April at the latest. Filing on 25 April misses the deadline by one day.
A is wrong. "Before" is not sufficient — the rule specifies a minimum gap of 21 days, not simply that it must precede the trial date.
C is wrong on the arithmetic. 25 April to 15 May is 20 days, not 21.
D is a deflection. The practice direction does not qualify the day count, and you have enough information to answer. Introducing uncertainty that is not in the text is avoidance, not legal reasoning.
Does the exception apply?
A client asks whether they fall within an exception under their company's share dealing policy. You are given the relevant extract:
"Directors may not deal in the company's shares during a closed period. A closed period begins two months before the announcement of the company's annual results and ends on the date of that announcement. An exception applies where the dealing arises from the exercise of an employee share option granted under an approved scheme, provided the option was granted before the closed period commenced."
The client is a director. They want to exercise a share option that was granted six weeks ago. The company entered its closed period three weeks ago.
A is correct. The option was granted six weeks ago. The closed period started three weeks ago. The option was therefore granted three weeks before the closed period began — which satisfies the condition that "the option was granted before the closed period commenced." The exception applies.
B is wrong. It incorrectly states the option was granted after the closed period started. Six weeks ago is before three weeks ago.
C is wrong. The test is objective — when the option was granted relative to the closed period — not whether the director subjectively knew about the period.
D is wrong. The policy is clear on the condition. There is no ambiguity; the facts satisfy it.
Was the colleague's claim accurate?
In a team meeting, a colleague stated: "Under the UK GDPR, organisations always have a maximum of 72 hours to report a personal data breach to the ICO, with no exceptions."
Your partner asks you to confirm, based on the following extract, whether this statement is accurate:
"Where a personal data breach is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall notify the competent supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it. Where the notification is not made within 72 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay."
B is correct. The colleague's statement has two errors the extract directly contradicts. First, the 72-hour requirement is not universal — it only applies where the breach is likely to result in a risk to individuals. Second, the extract explicitly contemplates late notification accompanied by reasons, so "no exceptions" is incorrect.
A is wrong. It ignores both qualifications visible in the text.
C is wrong. The extract does specify that late notification is permissible with reasons — so C's claim that it doesn't address exceptions is inaccurate.
D is a trap. The question asks you to assess accuracy based on the extract provided. The extract gives you enough to answer it. "I'd need to read more" is an intellectually safe-sounding response that avoids the question.
Which matter has the highest outstanding fees?
A partner emails asking you to review the billing summary below and identify which matter has the highest total outstanding fees. Outstanding fees = billed to date minus collected to date.
| Matter | Billed to date (£) | Collected to date (£) | Estimated total (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alderton Acquisition | 142,000 | 118,500 | 210,000 |
| Breck Refinancing | 87,400 | 87,400 | 130,000 |
| Castleway Dispute | 63,200 | 41,000 | 95,000 |
| Dunmore Restructuring | 195,000 | 160,000 | 310,000 |
Outstanding = billed minus collected. Dunmore: £195,000 − £160,000 = £35,000. Alderton: £142,000 − £118,500 = £23,500. Castleway: £63,200 − £41,000 = £22,200. Breck: £87,400 − £87,400 = £0. Dunmore has the highest outstanding balance.
Which matters are at risk of exceeding their budget?
Using the same billing data, the partner now asks: "Assuming fees continue to be incurred at the current average monthly rate, which matters are at risk of exceeding their estimated total fees?" Each matter has been running for 4 months.
| Matter | Billed to date (£) | Estimated total (£) | Projected duration (months) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alderton Acquisition | 142,000 | 210,000 | 6 |
| Breck Refinancing | 87,400 | 130,000 | 5 |
| Castleway Dispute | 63,200 | 95,000 | 6 |
| Dunmore Restructuring | 195,000 | 310,000 | 7 |
Monthly rate = billed ÷ 4. Projected total = monthly rate × projected duration.
Alderton: £142,000 ÷ 4 = £35,500/mo × 6 = £213,000 vs £210,000 — over by £3,000. At risk.
Breck: £87,400 ÷ 4 = £21,850/mo × 5 = £109,250 vs £130,000. Under budget — not at risk.
Castleway: £63,200 ÷ 4 = £15,800/mo × 6 = £94,800 vs £95,000. Just under — not at risk.
Dunmore: £195,000 ÷ 4 = £48,750/mo × 7 = £341,250 vs £310,000 — over by £31,250. At risk.
Which deal closed furthest outside its projected date?
A managing associate shares the following completion data for three recent deals and asks which closed furthest outside its projected completion date.
| Deal | Projected completion | Actual completion |
|---|---|---|
| Fenwick merger | 14 March | 28 March |
| Goode acquisition | 3 April | 12 April |
| Hartley disposal | 22 February | 17 March |
Fenwick: 14 to 28 March = 14 days late. Goode: 3 to 12 April = 9 days late. Hartley: 22 February to 17 March — February has 28 days (non-leap year): 22 Feb to 28 Feb = 6 days, plus 17 days in March = 23 days late. Hartley closed furthest outside its projected date.
D is wrong. The delays range from 9 to 23 days — these are meaningfully different.
Which deal was most affected by third-party delay?
Using the same completion data from Q6, the managing associate adds: "Third-party delay means any slippage caused by the counterparty's solicitors, regulatory approval timelines, or financing conditions. Internal delays — caused by our own drafting, client instructions, or resourcing — do not count."
Context: the Fenwick delay was caused by the counterparty's solicitors missing a deadline. The Goode delay arose because our client changed a key commercial term at the last minute. The Hartley delay was split: 10 days due to regulatory approval and 13 days due to our team's drafting timeline.
Applying the definition: Fenwick's entire 14-day delay was caused by the counterparty's solicitors — 14 days third-party. Goode's delay was caused by the client changing a commercial term — client-side, not third-party: 0 days. Hartley: 10 days regulatory (third-party) + 13 days drafting (internal) = 10 days third-party.
Fenwick's 14 days is the highest. C is wrong — it uses Hartley's total delay. D correctly identifies Hartley's third-party component but misidentifies it as the highest. B is wrong — the Goode delay was caused by the client.
Attention to detail is one of the seven framework attributes and one of the most practically tested in City law assessments. These exercises give you real-format documents to edit — emails, reports, and legal correspondence. Type directly into the document to make your corrections, then submit to see your score against the answer key.
A trainee has drafted this email to their supervisor. Edit the text directly to correct every error you can find, then submit.
Dear Jacquline
I wanted to give you an overview of the work I have coming up over the next to weeks, so that you are are aware of my current workload and we can flag any potential conflicts early.
The Henderson MatterI have been asked by Florence to to complete a first draft of the share purchase Agreement by close of play on Friday 14 March. I understand the client is keen to move quickly on this, so I plan to prioritise it at the start of the week. I will circulate my draft to you before sending it to Florence so that you have the opportunity to review it first.
The Greenfield TransactionI will also be assisting Sarah on the Greenfield transaction, which involves a review of several comercial contracts to identify any change of control provisions that may be triggered by the proposed acquisition. I expect this to take approximately two days. Once I have a better sense of timings I will flag any issues your way.
Other CommitmentsI am also away on the morning of thursday 20 March for a dental appointment, which I have already flagged with HR. This should not affect any of the above deadlines, but I wanted to make you aware.
Please let me know if you have any concerns of if you would like to discuss any of the above. I am happy to reprioritise if neccessary.
Kind regards,
Kate Laurens
Trainee Solicitor
Chambers White LLP
A trainee has drafted this report for a partner ahead of a client meeting. Edit the text directly to correct every error you can find, then submit.
Enviromental, Social and Governance Considerations for LiChi Group plc
1.1 This report has been prepared ahead of the client meeting with LiChi Group plc scheduled for 4 April 2025. Its purpose is to provide an overview of the key EGS considerations relevant to LiChi Group's proposed expansion into sustainable infrastructure, and to identify any compliance obligations the client should be aware of before proceeding.
1.2 The regulatory landscape governing EGS has developed significantly over the past five years. This report focuses on the three main areas of current relevance to LiChi Group: environmental reporting obligations, governance standards, and the risk of greenwashing claims.
2.Environmental Reporting2.1 Large UK companies are subject to mandatory climate-related financial disclosure requirements under the framework established by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCRD). These requirements have been phased in since 2022 and now apply to a broad range of listed companies, large private companies, and certain regulated firms.
2.2 Under the Companies Act 2006, certain large companies are required to include a non-financial information statement in there annual report. This includes disclosures relating to environmental matters, employee matters, social and community issues, human rights, and anti-corruption and antibribery policies.
2.3 Given LiChi Group's size and its listing on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange, it is likely that the full scope of these obligations applies. We would recommend that the client reviews its current disclosure practices against the applicable requirements as a matter of priority.
3.Financial Regulation and ESG3.1 The FCA's ESG sourcebook, which came into force in 2022, applies to asset managers and asset owners with assets under management above a certain threshold. These firms are required to make disclosures in line with the TCFD framework on an annual basis. It is worth noting that that the scope of these requirements is expected to expand over the next two years, and LiChi Group should monitor developments in this area closely.
3.2 LiChi Group's proposed infrastructure fund may fall within the scope of these requirements depending on its final structure. We would advise that this is confirmed before the fund is formally launched.
4.Greenwashing4.1 Greenwashing refers to the practice of making misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental credentials of a product, service, or investment strategy. It is an area of increasing regulatory focus in the UK and across the EU.
4.2 The Claimant should be aware that the FCA has made clear that it expects firms to be able to substantiate any ESG-related claims they make in their marketing materials or investor communications. Firms that cannot do so risk enforcement action, reputational damage, and potential civil liability.
4.3 In addition, the Competition and markets Authority has published guidance on green claims and has indicated that it will take action against businesses that make misleading environmental claims under consumer protection legislation. While this guidance is primarily directed at consumer-facing businesses, the underlying principles are relevant to LiChi Group's investor communications.
5.Governance5.1 The UK Corporate Governance code sets out principles of good governance for premium-listed companies. LiChi Group, as a Main Market listed company, is required to report on how it has applied the Code's principles on a comply-or-explain basis.
5.2 The governance provisions most relevant to LiChi Group in the context of its ESG strategy are those relating to board responsibility for long-term value and the management of environmental and social risks. These provisions build on the foundations established by the Cadbury's report of 1992, which first introduced the principle that boards should be collectively responsible for the long-term success of the company.
5.3 We would therefore recommended that the client consider appointing a board-level ESG committee, or extending the remit of its existing audit committee, to provide formal oversight of its ESG strategy and reporting obligations. This would demonstrate a commitment to good governance and reduce the risk of regulatory scrutiny.
6.Next StepsWe propose to discuss the above at the meeting on 4 April and to agree a programme of work with the client to address any gaps in its current compliance framework. A follow-up note setting out agreed action points will be circulated within five working days of the meeting.
This report is prepared for the purposes of the client meeting only and does not constitute legal advice. It is confidential and intended solely for the use of LiChi Group plc and Allie Ng.
Recorded video interviews are increasingly common across City law applications — many firms use them as a first filter before any human contact. This tool gives you a realistic simulation: a question appears, you prepare, then record your answer on camera. Watch yourself back using the self-assessment checklist. Your recordings are not stored or sent anywhere and are deleted automatically when you close the tab. You can download your recording if you want to keep it for review.
AI-powered feedback that analyses your answer for content, clarity, and confidence is in development and will be added to this section soon.
Press "New Question" to begin.
Press New Question to begin
Questions are drawn at random from a bank of eight, ranging from foundational questions to harder commercial awareness ones. Each session picks a different question so you are not practising the same answer repeatedly. Your recordings stay in your browser only — nothing is sent to any server. Close the tab and they are gone. Download any recording using the Download button if you want to keep it.
The First Seat is an early-stage project. We are looking for people who want to help shape it, test it, and make it better.
"I had no idea what they actually wanted. I'd done the practice tests, I'd read the values page. Neither helped with the part that was actually hard."
Anonymous applicant
I created The First Seat after going through the City law application process and realising there was no resource that actually explained the reasoning behind SJTs. The standard advice was always the same: just read the firm's values page. Yet I still struggled as neither helped with the part that was actually hard.
This is the resource I wish had existed. The product is still being built, and I would love for you to help shape what it becomes.
We are 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.
If you have sat a City law firm SJT or recorded video interview recently, a 30-minute conversation with you would directly shape what we build. We are particularly interested in the moments that stumped you and what you wish had existed.
If you are a current trainee, a recently qualified solicitor, or someone with direct knowledge of City law recruitment, we would welcome a conversation about the content. The framework needs to be accurate.
For any of the above, or anything else, reach out directly.
We read everything.
thefirstseatuk@gmail.com