MiniSeat

City firm seat guideSeat live

Dispute Resolution

All practice areas
In disputes, the quality of your analysis matters more than your speed. A vac schemer who returns a research memo that states the answer first, explains the reasoning plainly, and flags genuine uncertainty without padding will be trusted with more. Lawyers who hedge everything to avoid being wrong become liabilities on live disputes.

The guide separates the trainee-level work the seat is built around (Legal research memos, Chronology building, Document review) from the lighter vacation-scheme exercises candidates may actually see (Chronology exercise, Research note, Merits or issues summary).

Use the sections below to understand the documents, research and questions that tend to come up before you sit in the department.

What this seat involves

Disputes lawyers help clients resolve disagreements; with counterparties, regulators, employees, or shareholders. The route to resolution can be court litigation, arbitration (common in international commercial and construction disputes), mediation, or a negotiated settlement before proceedings are issued at all. Most disputes settle; the skill is knowing how to build a position strong enough to make settlement possible on good terms.

This seat is structurally different from transactional seats. There is no deal to close and no signing date driving the timeline. Work moves around court deadlines and the other side's behaviour. A lot of what trainees do is analysis; reading documents, building chronologies, researching legal points; rather than producing transactional documents. Writing quality matters more here than in any other seat.

Trainee-level work this seat is built around

You may not be asked to run all of this on a vacation scheme. This section explains the kind of work trainees and junior lawyers do, so the seat and its exercises make sense in context.

Legal research memos

Looking into a discrete legal point and writing it up clearly. "What is the limitation period for a breach of warranty claim?" The memo needs to be readable by a non-specialist and structured as advice, not a literature review.

Chronology building

Reading disclosure documents, witness material and correspondence to construct a timeline of relevant events. This is foundational work for every dispute; understanding what happened and when shapes the entire legal strategy.

Document review

Reviewing large volumes of documents for relevance and privilege as part of disclosure. Requires understanding what the dispute is actually about so you can identify what matters.

Drafting assistance

Helping draft correspondence, witness statement sections, or skeleton argument points. The work can also include evidence gathering and helping the team instruct experts.

Court and hearing attendance

Attending hearings; applications, case management conferences, and sometimes trials; to observe advocacy and understand how procedural steps connect to the overall case strategy.

Bundles and filing

Compiling court bundles, preparing indices, and managing court filings. More procedural than analytical, but understanding why a bundle is structured as it is teaches you how litigation unfolds.

What you could do on a vacation scheme

Vacation scheme exercises are usually lighter than trainee work. They are designed to test research, document sense, commercial judgement and how clearly you explain unfamiliar material.

Chronology exercise

You may be given a short bundle of emails or correspondence and asked to build a chronology of what happened, what is disputed and what documents support each point.

Research note

You may be asked to research a focused procedural or legal question and give the answer first, followed by the reasoning and any uncertainty.

Merits or issues summary

You may be asked to identify the strongest and weakest points in a client’s position from a short fact pattern. The aim is to show balanced analysis rather than advocacy at all costs.

Draft correspondence comments

You may be asked to read a draft letter and suggest where the tone, facts or legal position could be clearer before it is sent to the other side.

What good looks like at this stage

Clarify the task, have a proper go before escalating, explain your thinking and return clean work. The best vacation schemers are proactive and curious without creating noise.

In disputes, the quality of your analysis matters more than your speed. A vac schemer who returns a research memo that states the answer first, explains the reasoning plainly, and flags genuine uncertainty without padding will be trusted with more. Lawyers who hedge everything to avoid being wrong become liabilities on live disputes.

Research to do before you start

  • Understand the Civil Procedure Rules at a high level; the overriding objective, Part 36 offers, and the key stages of a commercial litigation claim from issue to trial.
  • Know the difference between litigation and arbitration; when parties choose arbitration, why it is preferred for international disputes, and the role of institutions like the ICC and LCIA.
  • Read about privilege; legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. Know what they protect and why the distinction matters when reviewing documents.
  • Look at the firm's disputes practice; sector disputes, international arbitration, regulatory investigations, shareholder claims. Each has a different rhythm and client base.
  • Read one recent significant commercial judgment. Understanding the facts, the legal issues, and how the court reasoned to its conclusion is better preparation than any summary.
  • Understand what without prejudice communications are and why they exist. This comes up constantly and missing it has real consequences.

Questions worth asking

"

At what point in a dispute do you typically start having a genuine settlement conversation with the other side; and what usually triggers it?

Shows you understand that most disputes settle and that strategy is built around that reality, not just winning at trial.

"

When you're advising a client whether to issue proceedings, what factors carry the most weight; the merits, the cost, or something else?

A question about commercial judgment rather than legal mechanics. The answer will be more nuanced and useful than anything in a textbook.

"

How has the increase in third-party litigation funding changed the kind of cases clients are willing to bring?

Topical. Litigation funding has materially changed the disputes market and shows you're tracking developments beyond procedure.

"

Is there a meaningful difference in the feel of international arbitration work compared to English court litigation; pace, client interaction, how you build the case?

Relevant if the firm has an arbitration practice. Shows you understand the two routes are genuinely different in how they run.

Dispute Resolution taster

How the SwiftPort taster works.

Before the document pack opens, the taster makes you do the preparation a trainee would do on an unfamiliar dispute. You learn how pre-action works, explain the process to the client in plain English, then read the bundle and decide what Priya needs to know before SwiftPort decides whether to issue.

Onboarding

  1. 01
    Complete the primer

    Start with the dispute resolution deck and Learning Hub. It covers the pre-action protocol, limitation, cause of action, evidence and the options at each stage — from negotiation through to trial.

  2. 02
    Send the client explainer

    Priya asks you to write a plain-English note for the client explaining what the letter before claim means, what happens next and what SwiftPort's realistic options are at this stage.

  3. 03
    Unlock the SwiftPort bundle

    Once the explainer is in, the document pack opens: the partner instruction, the letter before claim, a client call note, the underlying contract extract, service failure evidence and the invoice schedule.

  4. 04
    Produce the strategy note

    Read the bundle like a trainee, assess the strength of Harbour's claim and SwiftPort's position, and send Priya a short note that leads with your recommended response strategy and the key risks on each option.

Questions inside the taster

What does the letter before claim actually require SwiftPort to do, and by when?

Tests whether you can extract the operative deadlines and obligations from pre-action correspondence.

How strong is Harbour's breach of contract claim on the evidence available?

You have the contract extract, the failure summary and the invoice schedule — a good note uses all three.

What are SwiftPort's realistic options, and what does each one cost commercially?

A strong note ranks the options by risk and commercial consequence, not just legal merit.

If you had to advise one course of action, what would it be and why?

The taster rewards clear judgment under uncertainty — not hedging every recommendation.

The taster is live

Now practise the disputes seat.

Step into the MiniSeat dispute resolution taster and practise the same instincts this guide describes: reading a pre-action bundle, assessing the strength of the claim, and producing a ranked strategy note for your supervising associate.

Open Dispute Resolution tasterPreparing for assessment centres instead? Try the Written Exercise →