How long is a law firm written exercise?
It varies by firm, but many written exercises are timed between 30 and 90 minutes. Shorter exercises still test the same core skills: structure, prioritisation, judgement and clear writing.
Assessment Centre · Written Exercise Guide
A practical guide to what happens in a law firm assessment centre written exercise, what assessors score, what a strong answer looks like — and where to practise before your AC.
Section 1
A written exercise is a timed task set during a law firm assessment centre. You are given a brief — usually a fictional business scenario — and asked to produce a written output within a set time limit.
At City firms the output is typically an advice note, a short memo or an email to a senior lawyer or client team. You are playing a role: a trainee or junior associate who has been asked to pull together a clear position on a specific problem.
The exercise looks like a writing test. It is not. Firms are assessing how you think, prioritise, and communicate under pressure — not how elegantly you can write.
The distinction most candidates miss: You are not being marked on your legal knowledge or your prose style. You are being marked on whether you can read a dense brief, extract what actually matters, and give the team something useful — in the time allowed.
Section 2
The format varies slightly between firms but the sequence is consistent. Understanding it in advance removes the shock of the unfamiliar and lets you spend your time on the substance.
You receive the brief and your role
Instructions tell you who you are — usually a trainee or junior associate at a fictional firm. You are given a scenario, a business context, and the question you have been asked to answer.
You review the supporting material
A bundle of documents, emails, or facts accompanies the brief. There is more material than you need. Part of the exercise is deciding what matters and what is background noise.
You plan and write your answer
You produce the requested output — typically an advice note or memo — within the time limit. In practice this can be anywhere from around 25 minutes to an hour, depending on the firm and exercise format.
Your work is assessed against a rubric
Assessors score your output against predetermined criteria. The criteria vary by firm but typically weight issue identification, commercial awareness, structure, and professional tone.
You may be asked to discuss your answer
Some firms include a short debrief with an assessor after the exercise. They want to understand your reasoning, not just your conclusion.
Section 3
Most written exercise guides focus on structure and time management. Those matter. But City law firms weight four things above everything else — and preparation that ignores them will leave marks on the table.
01 · Highest weight
Issue identification
Can you find the two or three things that actually matter in a dense brief? Most candidates identify every issue. Strong candidates identify the ones that matter most to this client, at this time, on this deal.
02 · High weight
Commercial judgment
Do you understand why the issue matters to the client's business — not just what the legal position is in theory? Firms are hiring people who will advise commercial clients, not write essays about legal concepts.
03 · High weight
Structured advice
Can you take a position and explain it clearly — conclusion first, then reasoning, then next steps? Summaries of the brief score poorly. Recommendations with reasoning score well.
04 · Standard weight
Professional register
Does your output read like something a junior lawyer could send to a partner? Clear, measured, useful — not academic prose, not casual. The register signals whether you understand the environment you are entering.
Why generic AC prep falls short for law firms: Most resources teach you to write clearly and manage your time. That gets you to threshold. Scoring above threshold at City firms requires commercial judgment and issue prioritisation — skills built through practice on realistic scenarios, not by reading advice about them.
Section 4 · Example
The scenario below is representative of the type of brief used at City law firm assessment centres. It is structured around a commercial dispute, with the legal and factual material provided inside the brief. The test is whether you can interpret that material, prioritise the client's options and give a clear recommendation under time pressure.
Background
You are a trainee in the Commercial Disputes team at Hamilton & Co LLP. Your client, GreenCore Technologies Ltd, is a fast-growing provider of energy management software to commercial buildings.
GreenCore has received a Letter Before Claim from a former supplier, Apex Components Ltd. Apex supplied hardware components that integrate with GreenCore's software. Apex alleges that GreenCore wrongfully terminated the parties' Supply Agreement dated 1 January 2023 six months before its scheduled expiry on 31 December 2025. Apex claims this was a repudiatory breach and is seeking £340,000 for lost profits.
GreenCore's CEO, Daniel Hughes, maintains that the termination was justified. He says Apex repeatedly failed to deliver components on time and supplied defective products on several occasions, causing delays to GreenCore's customers and reputational damage. GreenCore has not yet responded to the Letter Before Claim. If proceedings are issued, they will be in the High Court. The CEO is concerned about financial exposure, management time and the potential impact on other supplier and customer relationships. A board meeting is scheduled for this afternoon.
Further information
Your task
Prepare a short note for the Partner setting out GreenCore's options, the key risks and considerations, and your recommendation. Structure your note clearly and concisely.
Try this exercise now
Section 5
The legal point is deliberately supplied in the brief. Marks separate on what you do with it: whether you prioritise the issue, explain the practical effect on GreenCore, and give a recommendation the partner can use in the board meeting.
Merits and exposure
The answer needs to recognise both sides: Apex says early termination was a repudiatory breach, while GreenCore says termination was justified by late delivery and defective products. The £340,000 claim and the £1.2m agreement value give the risk commercial weight.
Client options
Strong answers set out practical routes: respond to the Letter Before Claim, investigate the evidence, negotiate or mediate, defend the claim if the contract supports termination, and consider settlement if the litigation risk is disproportionate.
Evidence and legal checks
The best answers identify what must be checked before advising definitively: termination rights, notice requirements, delivery records, defect evidence, customer delay evidence, causation, loss calculation and whether Apex was already in breach.
Register and format
Does it read like a short note to a partner before a board meeting — direct, scannable, useful — or like an essay? The best answers lead with a recommendation and give the partner a clear route into the client call.
Section 6
Assessors at City firms read dozens of answers on the same day. The ones that stand out share the same structure and instinct. This is not about length or vocabulary — it is about what the answer chooses to include and how it leads.
Lead with the conclusion, not the background
The recommendation appears in the first paragraph, not the last. The reader knows your position before they work through your reasoning.
Connect the supplied rule to the practical consequence
Don't just repeat the legal point from the brief — explain what it means for this client, this decision and this timeline. That connection is where judgment is demonstrated.
Give specific next steps, not general advice
"Respond to the Letter Before Claim" is better than "deal with the dispute." "Review the termination clause, gather delivery and defect evidence, and open without-prejudice settlement discussions if the evidence is mixed" is better still. Specificity signals judgment.
Flag what you don't know — and why it matters
Strong answers acknowledge uncertainty without hiding behind it. "We do not yet have the contract terms — reviewing the exact termination mechanics would affect our advice on the fallback position" scores higher than pretending the brief gave you everything.
Write something a partner could forward
The test of register is simple: could this note land in a client's inbox without edits? Clear subheadings, short paragraphs, no unnecessary hedging. The writing should be invisible — the substance is what should stand out.
Section 7
These are the patterns assessors see in the majority of answers that score below threshold. They are not about legal knowledge — they are about the difference between summarising and advising.
Summarising the brief instead of advising on it. Restating the facts at length signals that you read the brief carefully. It does not demonstrate judgment. The assessor already knows what the brief says.
Treating all issues as equally important. A threatened High Court claim before an urgent board meeting and a routine document-gathering point are not the same thing. Failure to prioritise is itself a scoring criterion.
Spotting the claim but not turning it into advice. Repeating that Apex has threatened proceedings tells the assessor you read the brief. It does not show whether GreenCore should fight, negotiate, settle, or gather more evidence first.
Generic recommendations without timing or fallback. "Respond to the claim" is a starting point, not advice. What should the response say? What evidence is needed? Should the client seek settlement, mediation, or prepare to defend proceedings?
Academic register. Long paragraphs, passive voice, conclusion buried at the end. A partner reading this on a deal would have stopped by paragraph two. Write for a reader who is busy and has already seen forty versions of this brief today.
Section 8
It varies by firm, but many written exercises are timed between 30 and 90 minutes. Shorter exercises still test the same core skills: structure, prioritisation, judgement and clear writing.
Usually not. Some context can help, but most firms are testing how you think and communicate with the information provided. Clear reasoning normally matters more than technical detail.
First understand what is being assessed, then practise with a realistic timed task. You need to build the habit of reading a short bundle, identifying the key issues and writing a concise recommendation under pressure.
You can use the free written exercise to try the format. If you want more assessment-centre tasks, you can continue with the £15 pack or get the MiniSeat subscription, where those tasks are included alongside the Corporate Track.
They overlap, but they are not identical. A written exercise normally assesses your written output directly, while a case study interview may require you to discuss your reasoning verbally with interviewers.
Assessment Centre Pack
The MiniSeat AC pack puts you inside a realistic City law firm written exercise — same brief density, same time pressure, same assessment criteria.
Start here · no account needed
Try the first exercise free before committing to anything.
Full brief · 25-60 minute formats · structured feedback on your answer
5 founding spots remaining. After these, the subscription price moves to £29/month. Founding members lock £19 permanently.
Four exercises, permanent access, redo any exercise as many times as you need. The focused option if you only want AC practice right now.
One payment · permanent access
The AC pack plus the full Corporate Track, Trainee Journal, and partner feedback — everything, for less than the cost of a textbook per month while the founding rate lasts.
Founding rate · locked for life · cancel anytime
Built by a City-trained corporate lawyer. Assessment criteria reflect how associates evaluate written work in practice — not generic competency frameworks.