Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Case Studies at Assessment Centres
Having been on the receiving end of case studies (eventually emerging victorious!) and worked with aspiring commercial solicitors to help them do the same ever since, this article exposes the most common pitfalls we have seen in case studies at assessment centres - and how to avoid them.
1. Inefficient Preparation
Piecemeal Preparation: Some candidates prepare by reading whatever they can find online, without understanding how it all fits together or how to apply that knowledge. To avoid this, focus on integrating your learning into a cohesive framework that you can draw upon during the assessment; we have a catalogue of free cribsheets to help you do that (under the Free Resources tab). Practise applying your knowledge in realistic scenarios to ensure you can apply your knowledge effectively under pressure; we have case study packs to help you with this (under the Catalogue tab).
Lack of Practice: Failing to familiarise yourself with the format, base knowledge required and time constraints is planning to fail. Find out well in advance the format and broad theme of the case study that may be conducted by your target firm from future trainee solicitors from that firm or peers who have completed assessment centres at that firm in order to focus your efforts at practice.
2. Mismanagement of Time
Poor Time Allocation: Spending too much time on one section at the expense of others can result in incomplete work. Allocate your time wisely to ensure all parts of the task are addressed. If you are pressed for time, make sure that you at least somehow indicate you are aware of the issue (e.g. in a written response, add half a sentence, or a even a bullet point; in an oral presentation, add a line at the end and mention that you are happy to answer questions about this point later); otherwise, it is fair for the assessor to assume that you have completely failed to clock the issue altogether.
Rushing Through Tasks: Conversely, rushing can lead to errors and oversight. Balance speed with accuracy to maintain quality throughout your response.
3. Inefficient Communication
Overuse of Jargon: Using excessive legal jargon can confuse assessors, especially if they are role-playing as a lay client. Tailor your language to suit the audience, explaining complex terms and their practical implications clearly.
Inappropriate Topping-and-Tailing: In written responses, understanding the deliverable expected of you (e.g. legal memorandum, email to supervising partner, email to client) is an easy way to gain marks through using the correct salutation and sign-off. When in doubt, err on the side of being too formal.
4. Lack of Structure
Disorganised Responses: Presenting information in a haphazard manner can confuse assessors (and yourself). Use a clear structure to organise your thoughts logically: in this article we explain a repeatable 4-part formula you can adapt to case studies.
Over-Focus on Certain Issues to the Detriment of Others: Focusing too much on particular issues while neglecting others weakens your response. Ensure that the length of your response for each point corresponds to its importance to the reader, whether that be a supervising partner or a client.
5. Inadequate Analysis
Surface-Level Analysis: Providing superficial answers without backing up your claims with facts the document pack will undermine your credibility. If your conclusion is based on inferences rather than explicit facts stated within the document pack, make that clear, and explain how you arrived at that inference in a step-by-step, methodical fashion. Remember that what seems obvious to you will not necessarily be obvious to the assessor (especially if they are role-playing as a lay client).
Over-focus on problems and failure to provide solutions: The ability to explain both problems and offer corresponding solutions is what elevates a candidate from good to great. After all, commercial solicitors are paid to offer actionable advice!
