Tell me about you
Hi, im wendy, I am in final year law at Oxford. There I am the fresher’s representative in the Oxford Women in Law society, take part in moots and also take part in the philosophy society. Beyond academics, I like to explore and challenge myself in every way, whether that be soduku with no numbers or chess. Alternatively i love to be creative, whether that be starting a brand new sewing project or practising new painting techniques. I also go running and play netball, and quite randomly, I am a massive one direction fan
How does being a lawyer at Ls align with my skill set?
First, I’m someone who thrives on analytical precision and structured problem-solving, which aligns with the technical standards Ls is known for. During my time at Oxford, I learned to approach legal problems not just from an academic perspective, but from a strategic one — always asking: “What’s the practical implication for the client?” When I competed in the Ls Making Lin Essay Competition, for instance, I explored how emerging technologies reshape corporate governance. I didn’t just analyse the law; I assessed how businesses could adapt to risk while maintaining a competitive edge. That reflects exactly how Ls trains its lawyers — to think rigorously, but also commercially and globally.
Second, Ls’ “One Team” culture resonates deeply with me. In the Ashurst Equality Act project, our team succeeded because I brought together people with very different communication styles and encouraged genuine collaboration. That experience taught me how to unite diverse thinkers toward a shared goal — which mirrors the way Ls integrates lawyers across practice areas and jurisdictions to deliver seamless client service.
Third, I’m drawn to Ls’ commitment to innovation and continuous learning — whether through its investment in legal tech or its culture of curiosity. I have a natural drive to stretch myself and implement feedback quickly. For example, at Slaughter and May, I actively sought out my supervisor’s feedback on how to make my research more client-ready, then applied it in real time, improving both my analysis and presentation. I believe that willingness to learn and adapt is exactly what allows Ls lawyers to deliver excellence consistently in a fast-changing legal landscape.
Finally, what makes Ls unique to me is its client focus — not just in solving problems, but in anticipating them. That forward-looking, globally strategic mindset reflects how I naturally approach work: I like to step back, understand context, and think several moves ahead.
Tell me about a time you worked in a team and there was a conflict?
OR
Tell me about a time you had to motivate a team. How did you specifically do this?
Situation:
During my time at Oxford University, I was the Freshers’ Representative for the Oxford Women in Law Society. Once, me and my team had planned an event, but it had very little registrations and engagement. One of the committee member, Amy, suggested canceling the event, while the President, Helena, became very upset by even the suggestion of that. This disagreement and conflict caused alot of tension, stalling progress, and the lowering team’s morale.
The conflict risked affecting specific team members attendance to team meeting or even ruining the Society’s reputation. So i knew that i had to resolve the situation without alienating either of the committee members but that also kept the team aligned and motivated.
Action (80% of answer):
To really support both of them, I first listened to both perspectives 1:1 to make sure no one felt single out, giving them a safe space to explain how they were feeling, what was motivating their reactions and how i could support them. Speaking to Amy, it turned out she wanted to cancel the event because she cared so much about the Society and didn’t want it to fail. Speaking to Helena, it turned out she was upset because she also cared deeply about the Society and wanted it to succeed. So then I brought the Amy and Helena together for a structured discussion, where I acted as a mediator. I framed the conversation around our shared goal of the Society being a success. Positioning the meeting like this allowed them both to understand that the end of the day, they both loved the Society and wanted it to succeed; the way they communicated that just manifested differently. I was proactive, proposed solutions that combined both of their perspectives. I took charge beyond my role in order to help motivate my team and i suggested using automated emailing tools with QR registration codes and creatively rebranding the event as ‘Law Cupcake Decorating’, which encouraged relaxed networking, weekly mental health circle groups, panels of inspirational women in law. This made the team more excited for the event, moving team’s energy from demotivated to proactive. To further boost the overall team’s morale, I set clear, achievable mini-targets (e.g., “let’s each secure 10 new sign-ups this week”), which gave the team momentum and quick wins. I delegated responsibilities based on strengths and set mini-deadlines by creating timetables to track progress. I also checked in regularly with both colleagues to monitor morale, adjust plans, and ensure communication remained open.
Result:
The event ended up being the Society’s most successful event with 87 attendees and excellent feedback. Both committee members felt their ideas were valued, and looking back to this moment really helped team with trust, communication and collaboration improved significantly for future projects. The committee came away more bonded and energised, and members stayed motivated for the rest of the year.
In your opinion, what makes an effective team? Why was your approach the best one?
OR
Tell me about a time you worked in a successful team…..
In my view, an effective team is one where people feel their contributions are valued, where strengths are recognised and put to use, and where there’s a clear shared goal that everyone is working towards.
That’s why in my Women in Law Society example, I thought the best approach was to reframe the conflict by reminding both Amy and Helena of our common purpose — making the Society a success. Once we grounded the team in that shared goal, I was able to motivate them by aligning tasks with their individual strengths and by keeping communication open through regular check-ins.
This worked because it combined empathy with structure: I gave each person space to express themselves, but also provided clear direction and accountability. It turned what could have been a divisive situation into an opportunity for collaboration.
So for me, an effective team is not about everyone agreeing all the time, but about creating a culture where diverse views are respected, channelled productively, and ultimately lead to a better outcome for the group. That’s exactly what happened — we went from conflict and low morale to delivering the most successful event the Society had ever run
Tell me about a time you have led a team that underperformed. What did you learn from this?
OR
Can you think of a time you used the lessons you learned from your underperforming team? (use oxf women in law as the example where you applied this to that)
OR
Tell me about a time you showed leadership
I am a part of my local netball team. Early in the season, the captain got accidentally severely injured by one of our other players, which meant she could not play for several games. This meant we suffered several losses in a row. Morale was low, players were frustrated with each other, and our usual strategies weren’t working. The team’s cohesion was also suffering, and it looked like we might finish at the bottom of the league even though it was our ambition of reaching the semi-finals.
I was really passionate about the team succeeding so, even though I was not vice captain, instead of accepting defeat I remained resilient and proactively held an open team meeting to understand everyone’s perspectives. I encouraged players to frame the discussion around our shared goal of improving the team rather than assigning blame to a particular player. I tried to make it an safe discussion of active listening to ensure quieter team members were heard and valued, rebuilding trust and confidence. I analysed key areas where we were underperforming such as communication on the court, positioning, and stamina. I introduced drills targeting those weaknesses and assigned mini-leadership responsibilities to players to give everyone ownership of the improvement process. I set mini-goals for each game, such as calling out each other’s name to improve passing accuracy, to keep focus on tangible progress. I reinforced positivity and improvement by having mini sessions at the end of matches were wed go around in a circle and say what went well and even better if congratulating team members. I adapted strategies based on ongoing feedback, encouraged peer coaching during practice, and ensured the team felt collectively responsible for improvement.
By mid-season, the team’s performance improved significantly. We started winning matches consistently, teamwork strengthened and players expressed that they felt more motivated, supported, and confident in their abilities. This resulted in me being awarded ‘Player of the Year’ and ‘Most Improved Girl’ in netball for my dedication to the team.
This experience taught me that underperformance often stems from morale, structure, and engagement rather than skill alone. It reinforced the importance of empathy, clear communication, motivation, and resilience, all skills I later applied in other group projects and leadership roles.
Can you give an example of how you have dealt with a difficult client in the past? How did you manage the situation, and what was the outcome?
OR
Tell me about a time where you dealt with someone difficult
OR
Tell me about a time you showed flexibility
One example comes from my volunteering at Woodside School, where I was unexpectedly assigned to teach English GCSE to 15 students with significant behavioural difficulties. Their predicted grades were D–U, and they were unmotivated, which made teaching very challenging and disrupted my initial lesson plans as it was hard to keep students engaged. I was even offered the option to switch classes, but I saw this as an opportunity to step up and provide the best possible service to students who really needed it.
My first step was to understand their perspective. I spent time talking to the students to learn what discouraged them and what subjects they found engaging. With that insight, I adapted my approach: I broke complex material into digestible chunks, introduced creative exercises to keep them engaged, and tracked each student’s progress carefully so they could see tangible improvement.
To maintain discipline while keeping trust, I combined patience with clear expectations. I also collaborated closely with teachers to align strategies and reinforce consistent support. Importantly, I gave the students constructive feedback and celebrated small wins, which gradually helped rebuild their confidence.
The outcome was transformative: all students exceeded expectations, achieving grades between B and C, and many rediscovered a genuine interest in learning. The Head of Department even described me as having ‘an amazing ability to build meaningful relationships with clients and colleagues alike to achieve high-quality results.’
This experience showed me that delivering excellent client service means meeting people where they are — adapting to their needs, being resilient when progress feels slow, and remaining calm under pressure.
Tell me about a time you have built a positive relationship with someone in a senior position
In my free time i taught myself chess so i like to take part in all level chess tournaments to challenge myself, although I have only being playing for a few months. I had the opportunity to interact with a grandmaster who was advising tournament participants. I wanted to learn from their expertise, but initially I was unsure how to approach someone so experienced without appearing intrusive.
Building a meaningful and productive relationship with a senior figure required balancing respect, empathy, and initiative. I needed to demonstrate that I could add value to the interaction, be receptive to feedback, and apply their guidance effectively—without overstepping or relying solely on their attention.
I took a proactive approach by taking 20 minutes to analyse my games to identify key positions where I struggled then i used this to ask the grandmaster precise questions. This ensured that the mentor’s time was respected and that our interactions were productive. I engaged in active listening, showing genuine interest in their reasoning and clarifying points to fully understand the logic behind their suggestions. I even played the grandmaster serveal times to really understand my weak points in action. By reflecting on their advice, I implemented their feedback thoughtfully and adapted quickly in subsequent games, demonstrating tangible improvement. To strengthen the relationship, I kept in touch and consistently updating the grandmaster on my progress, sharing reflections on how I applied their guidance in real-time games. I also collaborated and built trust by engaging with others on my level to discussing insights I received, amplifying the learning value for the wider group.
The grandmaster ended up seeing me as a dedicated mentee and now takes time out of his day to provide more guidance. My game performance improved significantly, and my elo improved by 200, but beyond results, I had built a trusted, mutually respectful relationship with the grandmaster that lasted beyond the tournament.
Tell me about a time you made a mistake? How did this make you feel/ how did you respond?
One mistake I made early on was not prioritising balance when I started at Oxford. I was so excited and so determined to prove myself academically, that I neglected my wellbeing, thinking that constant hard work would automatically translate into success. I pushed myself so hard, doing all nighters at least 2 times a week, spending over 70 hours a week reading or writing essays. It reached a point where I recognised that if I continued this way, my performance and mental wellbeing would deteriorate further. I decided to take a structured, proactive approach to correcting this.
First, I reflected on what had gone wrong — I wasn’t managing my energy as effectively as my time. I analysed my daily schedule, identified stress triggers, and created a plan to balance intense study periods with genuine recovery time.
Second, I sought professional support and began therapy, which helped me develop tools for managing anxiety and maintaining perspective when under pressure.
Third, I introduced practical habits that reinforced balance — I began scheduling study in focused blocks, building in non-negotiable breaks, and setting clearer boundaries between academic and personal time.
Fourth, I made accountability a priority. I tracked my mood and productivity weekly, adjusting my approach if I noticed patterns of burnout re-emerging.
Finally, I deliberately practised resilience in smaller, high-pressure environments — for example, during mock assessments and debates, I would ground myself using breathing techniques and mindset framing before presenting, ensuring I could perform under pressure without feeling overwhelmed. Over time, my academic performance improved significantly — not just in grades but in consistency and focus. I became far more composed under pressure, which translated directly into how I now handle demanding workloads or multiple priorities. Most importantly, I learned that high performance and wellbeing are interdependent; I can only sustain excellence when I manage both. That mindset has stayed with me, particularly when working on tasks that require long hours or competing deadlines.
tell me about a time you were resilient
In August, I set myself the ambitious challenge of sewing my entire holiday wardrobe for portugal from scratch. I had limited experience, but I wanted to push myself to plan, execute, and complete a complex project efficiently. For one key piece—a white maxi skirt with a gathered slit—I underestimated how long the gathering would take and miscalculated the amount of fabric I needed. This mistake caused delays in completing not only the skirt but also my other planned outfits. Additionally, some tops didn’t fit properly at the waist because I hadn’t accounted for the fabric’s stretch, creating further setbacks. Rather than feeling frustrated or stressed because I had set a high personal standard a tight deadline, and my initial planning had fallen short, instead focused on how to resolve it efficiently while keeping the rest of the wardrobe on track.
I began by tackling the white maxi skirt with the gathered slit, but quickly realised I had underestimated how long the gathering would take and hadn’t bought enough fabric. To address this, I sourced additional fabric on Ebay that closely matched the original material and adjusted my schedule so I could work on other garments while waiting for delivery. Simultaneously, I noticed that some of the tops I had sewn weren’t fitting snugly around the waist, so I carefully unstitched the hems and inserted elastic band tape to achieve the intended fit. I then reflected on each mistake and adjusted my sewing technique to avoid repeating errors in subsequent pieces. Throughout, I prioritised tasks strategically, focusing first on garments with the biggest adjustments while leaving simpler pieces for later. Despite the delays, I was resilient, setting mini-goals for each day, such as completing one garment or perfecting the waistband, and celebrated small wins such as stictching straight. I also watched sought feedback from friends and family, integrating their suggestions to refine the fit and style of my outfits, ensuring each piece met a high standard despite the initial mistakes. By treating each mistake as a learning opportunity and staying flexible with my planning, I gradually regained momentum and ensured all garments were completed by the holiday.
All garments were completed to a high standard in time for my holiday. The outfits received lots of compliments. This experience reinforced that mistakes are opportunities to develop resilience, adaptability, and problem-solving skills. By confronting these challenges, I was able to reassess my original approach, identify improvements, and deliver results beyond my initial expectations — a lesson I now apply in high-pressure professional settings where careful reflection and adaptability are essential.
time management, protisation, and execution
Tell me about a time where you demonstrated excellence
OR
Tell me about a time you demonstrated innovation
OR
Tell me about a time you were creative
I took part in Ls’ Making Lins Essay Competition, a programme designed to develop commercial awareness, legal research, legal writing, and presentation skills. The prompt asked, “What is the biggest innovation or disruption to the business world?” Although I had no prior experience writing essays on legal or business topics, I wanted to produce a submission that was insightful, original, and persuasive, demonstrating my analytical thinking, commercial awareness, ability communicate complex ideas clearly and ability to tackle unfamiliar material. I had no prior experience writing essays on such a topic, let alone presenting to partners, so this was both a steep learning curve and a unique opportunity to push myself.
To begin, I approached the challenge strategically. I immersed myself in the latest technological innovations, from AI and automation to digital platforms, and systematically assessed their potential impact on business operations, markets, and regulation. Recognising my lack of prior expertise, I approached this as a structured learning project, building my understanding. I then identified practical implications of technology for businesses, such as governance challenges, compliance risks, and competitive advantages. I prioritised trends most likely to disrupt markets and proposed solutions businesses could implement to mitigate risk while capitalising on opportunities. I translated this complex research into a clear, persuasive essay and presentation. I crafted a narrative connecting abstract technological trends to tangible business strategy, showing that I could distil complexity into clarity, a key aspect of commercial thinking. To overcome my lack of prior essay experience, I actively sought guidance from teachers and mentors on structuring arguments, integrating evidence, and articulating complex ideas clearly. I drafted multiple versions, iterating based on feedback and self-review. For example, when feedback suggested my examples were too abstract, I was reflective and resilient, revising the essay to include concrete business cases showing how technology disrupts markets and creates competitive advantage. I also incorporated feedback on structure, clarity, and relevance, ensuring the essay was impactful both intellectually and practically. I reallt enjoyed this feedback process and it taught me to be coachable, able to take feedback and implemented. I strengthened my growth mindset. To prepare for the partner pitch, something i had never done prior to the competition, I developed a structured presentation, anticipating potential questions and challenges. I practised articulating complex ideas concisely and clearly, adapting my explanations in real-time during the pitch based on partner questions. I even reflected immediately after each pitch session to improve my argumentation and delivery.
In the end, I was selected as a highly commended finalist for Ls’ essay competition, presenting to six partners and securing £2,000 funding for my school. The judges highlighted praised my excellence in essay writing. After the competition, I built on my ideas on this essay, later winning Hogan Lovells’ bursary for demonstrating commercial awareness and analytical insight.
This experience reinforced the importance of excellence through preparation, structured problem-solving, the ability to translate insight into action and the ability to reflect on feedback to achieve excellence. It strengthened my confidence in taking on complex, unfamiliar challenges, thinking commercially, and presenting solutions persuasively.
Making lins Essay competition follow ups:
What did you actually write about in your essay?
In 2019, I focused on technology mainly disrupting how businesses grew in the fact that social media changed distribution, branding and access to customers. Massive companies like Facebook, Airbnb, Uber were huge publishers that did not need physical products to flourish.
Making Lins Essay competition follow ups:
You wrote about disruption—now that some time has passed, do you still think technology is the biggest threat, or has something else overtaken it?
/
If you had to rewrite that essay today with the knowledge you’ve gained, what would you change?”
The question was ‘In your lifetime, what in your opinion has been the single biggest disruption or innovation in the business world?’
I still think technology is the biggest disruption, but if I wrote the essay today, what has changed is where that disruption sits. In 2019, I focused on technology mainly disrupting how businesses grew in the fact that social media changed distribution, branding and access to customers. Massive companies like Facebook, Airbnb, Uber were huge publishers that did not need physical products to flourish. If I rewrote the essay today, I’d argue that technology, particularly the rise of Agentic AI, is no longer just a tool; it is embedded in core decision-making — credit assessments, compliance, Algorithmic Bias, risk pricing, and legal strategy. The real disruption today is the ‘Regulatory Lag’ and the fragmented legal regulatory landscape businesses now have to navigate.
Frameworks like EU’s DORA and the EU AI Act (the first attempt to put a workable framework around AI by categorising risk), show that regulators no longer view technology as a ‘support tool,’ but as critical infrastructure. The EU AI Act, in particular, represents a ‘Brussels Effect’ moment; it forces any global company wanting access to the European market, regardless of if they are a Silicon Valley tech giant or a Ls mining client, to adopt a ‘compliance-by-design’ mindset.
While I’ve tracked initiatives like the Bletchley Declaration as reasonable attempts at global guidelines, I recognize that true international alignment is incredibly difficult, for example the OECD’s 15% minimum tax—if we struggle to find consensus on tax, achieving binding global rules for AI will be a massive challenge. Consequently, the disruption today isn’t just the tech steaming ahead; it’s the fragmented legal landscape that businesses now have to navigate, making the role of a cross-border firm like Ls more critical than ever.”
We see this ‘catch-up’ most clearly in Intellectual Property, specifically the ‘Ownership Gap.’ Cases like Thaler confirm the law still insists on human authorship, yet ongoing disputes like Getty Images v Stability AI show that courts are being forced to solve policy questions before the law is even written. For a business, this creates a massive Liability Risk as many questions are left unanswered such as: Who do you sue when an AI hallucinates, breaches copyright, or—crucially—where does liability sit when models are trained on unlicensed content?”
This is why Ls stands out to me. The firm isn’t just reading the Act; it is acting as a Strategic Risk Advisor. Ls was a ‘first-mover’ here—not just by providing guidance when competitors and the rest of the market hadn’t even formed an opinion, but by by creating a dedicated team of 20 ‘AI Lawyers’ to embed this expertise directly into every practice group. Whether it’s using Solomonic’s litigation analytics (a platform Ls uses that tracks every single judgment and move made in the English Commercial Courts.) to bring data-driven certainty to courtroom strategy, or the firm-wide rollout of Legora to accelerate cross-border mandates, Ls is proving that in 2026, the ultimate ‘Killer App’ is Regulatory Certainty.”
You mentioned the ‘Brussels Effect.’ what is it?
The Brussels Effect is a term to describe the European Union’s unique power to act as a global regulatory superpower. Essentially, it is the process through which the EU regulates its own internal market, but those rules end up becoming the global standard for the rest of the world. If a global company (like Apple, Google, or a multinational mining firm) wants to do business in the EU (the world’s largest high-income trading block), they must comply with EU regulations. Instead of making one version of their product/service for Europe and a different one for the rest of the world (which is incredibly expensive and inefficient), most companies simply adopt the strict EU standard globally.
for example, EU AI act, EU CSDDD.
Explain ‘DORA’ (Digital Operational Resilience Act) to me as if I’m a CFO of a bank. Why should I care about it more than just a standard IT update?”
Explain how the brussels affect of the EU AI act is changing the market?
The EU AI Act: This is your “High Bar” example. By setting the first comprehensive rules on AI risk, the EU is forcing Silicon Valley to build “compliance-by-design” into their models now, because they cannot afford to be locked out of the European market later.
Is ‘Compliance-by-Design’ a burden or a competitive advantage for our clients?”
- The “Burden” (The Reality Check)
Acknowledge the immediate “friction” this causes for clients:
Upfront Costs: It requires massive investment in engineering and legal “sync-ups” before a product even generates revenue.
Slower “Time-to-Market”: You can’t just “move fast and break things” anymore. The design phase is longer because you have to build in bias testing and human-override features.
Operational Rigidity: Once a system is “compliant by design,” making quick, iterative changes can be harder because every change needs to be re-audited.
- The “Competitive Advantage” (The Strategic Win)
This is where you show your Ls “Agile” thinking:
The “Brussels Effect”: The EU AI Act is becoming the global blueprint. A client who meets “Compliance by Design” standards in the EU can easily export their product to the US or Asia. Those who don’t will find themselves locked out of the world’s most lucrative markets.
Trust as a Moat: In 2026, corporate clients are terrified of “Reputational Contagion” from biased AI. A product that is “compliant by design” is insurable and bankable. It’s an easier sell to a CEO than a “black box” system that might cause a PR disaster.
Avoiding “Technical Debt”: It is 10x cheaper to build compliance in at the start than to try and “retrofit” a model later. Retrofitting often requires deleting the entire model and starting over—Compliance by Design protects the client’s IP from being wiped out by regulators.
In the Getty Images v Stability AI case, what is the core legal conflict between ‘Fair Use’ and ‘Copyright Infringement’?
If an AI model ‘hallucinates’ and gives advice that leads to a financial loss, who should be liable: the developer, the user, or the person who provided the training data?
How specifically does the EU AI Act categorize risk?
The EU AI Act uses a “risk-based approach,” meaning the more dangerous the potential impact of the AI, the stricter the rules. It categorizes AI into four distinct buckets.
- Unacceptable Risk (Prohibited)
These systems are considered a threat to people’s safety, livelihoods, and rights. They are banned in the EU.
+1
Examples: Real-time remote biometric identification (facial recognition) in public spaces for law enforcement (with limited exceptions), “social scoring” by governments, and AI that uses subliminal techniques to manipulate behavior.
Case Study Impact: If a mining company uses AI to “predict” and punish worker behavior based on biometric surveillance, it could be illegal.
- High-Risk AI
This is where Ls does most of its work. These systems are allowed but must comply with strict “Compliance by Design” rules (logging, transparency, human oversight).
Examples: AI used in critical infrastructure (e.g., managing a power grid at a mine), recruitment/HR (screening CVs), credit scoring, and medical devices.
Case Study Impact: If the target mine uses AI to manage safety-critical machinery or automated drilling, it is likely High-Risk. You must check for a CE Marking and a full “Conformity Assessment.”
+1
- Limited Risk (Transparency Obligations)
These systems have very light requirements, mainly focused on disclosure.
Examples: Chatbots (users must know they are talking to an AI) and “Deepfakes” (must be labeled as manipulated).
Case Study Impact: If the mine uses a chatbot for internal HR queries, the risk is low, but they still need a “terms of use” disclosure.
- Minimal or No Risk
The majority of AI systems fall here. There are no mandatory legal obligations.
Examples: AI-enabled video games, spam filters, or inventory management systems that don’t involve human safety.
f they are in the ‘High-Risk’ category—for example, if they use AI to monitor worker safety underground—I’d want to see their Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment. If they don’t have one, that’s a major post-closing liability that could result in fines of up to 7% of global turnover.”
How would Solomonic data change our litigation strategy for a mining client?
you mention “Agentic AI,” they might ask: “How does an autonomous agent change the liability for a bank compared to a standard algorithm?”
The difference is discretion. A standard algorithm follows a fixed path, but an Agent makes autonomous decisions to reach a goal. This creates a ‘black box’ problem for compliance—if the Agent breaches a regulation while trying to maximize profit, we have to determine if the liability sits with the developer’s code or the user’s instructions. That’s the ‘Ownership Gap’ I mentioned.
Making Lins Essay competition follow ups:
How do you think the 15% minimum tax failure specifically predicts a failure in AI regulation?
I think the struggle with global tax predicts a similar ‘fragmentation trap’ for AI for three main reasons:
a) Innovation vs. Safety: Just as nations created ‘carve-outs’ in the 15% tax to keep their economies competitive, they are now doing the same with AI. The US and China view AI as a geopolitical arms race; they won’t let a global ‘safety’ treaty slow down their tech giants.
b) Regulatory Arbitrage: The tax world proved that companies simply move to ‘low-tax’ havens. We’re already seeing the rise of ‘AI Havens’—jurisdictions with no rules where companies go to train their most experimental models away from the EU AI Act.
c) The Nexus Problem: Both tax and AI are ‘borderless.’ If an AI is trained in one country but used in another, which rules apply? The OECD struggle showed that without a global enforcement body, countries will always prioritize their own tech sovereignty over global harmony.
The Conclusion: Ultimately, the ‘failure’ of a single global rulebook proves that Regulatory Divergence is the new normal. This is why Ls is so critical right now—clients don’t need a lawyer who waits for global consensus; they need a firm that can bridge the gap between the US ‘innovation’ and EU ‘risk’ models in real-time.”
Making Lins Essay competition follow ups:
When you pitched to the partners in the finals, what was the hardest question they asked you, and how did you handle the pressure of not knowing the answer immediately?”
To be honest, while I don’t remember the exact wording of the question as it was 7 years ago now and I only have access now to the essay i actually submitted
Making Lins Essay competition follow ups:
How does the innovation you wrote about specifically help a firm like Linlaters operate more efficiently?
2019 Perspective: The innovation I wrote about in 2019—the dominance of platforms over products—helped Ls realize that we shouldn’t just be ‘selling hours’; we should be ‘providing access to legal solutions.’ It pushed the firm to develop tools like Ls Create, where we build bespoke digital platforms for clients to manage their own documents or compliance. It makes the firm more efficient because we aren’t reinventing the wheel for every deal; we are using technology to handle the ‘commodity’ work so the lawyers can focus on the ‘bespoke’ strategy.
2026 Perspective: : The innovation I’m focused on now—Regulated AI—helps Ls operate more efficiently in two specific ways: 1)Operational Efficiency (The ‘Engine Room’): Using tools like Laila or Harvey to conduct Due Diligence (like in my mining case study) allows a trainee to review 500 leases in the time it used to take to review five. This doesn’t just save time; it reduces human error, making the firm’s output more ‘bulletproof.’ 2)Strategic Efficiency (The ‘Winning Edge’): Using Solomonic for litigation analytics allows the firm to be efficient with the client’s money. Instead of pursuing a three-year court battle based on a ‘hunch,’ we can use data to tell the client their 15% chance of success on day one. Efficiency for Ls means getting the client to the right result in the shortest possible time.”.
Ultimately, these innovations allow Ls to pivot away from the ‘billable hour’ toward Value-Based Billing. If we use AI to solve a problem in one hour that used to take ten, we are actually more profitable because we are selling our expertise and data-driven certainty, not just our time. It allows the firm to stay ‘High Margin’ while delivering faster results for the client.
-
buyer perspective179
-
seller pespective94
-
email to partner structure6
-
commercial awareness22
-
why Ll39
-
HR42
-
cases to include4
-
Financing The Deal55
-
capnify7
-
watson glaser14
-
Mining115
-
Written task questions they may ask118
-
Converting Vac1
-
TC Interview5
-
case study loan agreement4
-
2nd online as11
