This is a collection of SUGGESTED THEMES taken from the week’s business news that could be interesting from the point of view of LAW FIRMS. I have included some questions that you COULD ask in an interview situation and the thinking behind those questions. You could ask the ones I have suggested but the idea of describing the thinking behind them is to give you some pointers as to how you could come up with your own. When putting together your own questions, you MUST tailor them to the company that you are interviewing with.
When you are in an interview situation, it is imperative that you know as much as possible about the company and the individuals you are speaking to. Doing this makes it much more likely that you will be able to engage positively with them because asking the right questions demonstrates that you know what it important to the firm and that you “understand” them. From an interviewer’s point of view, there is nothing worse than being faced by a candidate who clearly doesn’t have an understanding about what the company does. It is just a waste of everyone’s time in this day and age given all the available news sources – and there is NO excuse for a lack of preparation.
AI and the law
AI continues to change the legal profession...
AI usage is spreading. Given that it can dramatically speed up some tasks, this is not surprising! However, the UKJT is going one further which makes sense given how quickly the tech is advancing…
Possible questions:
“The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce has warned that lawyers could be personally liable for failing to use AI where it would have improved their work. How is this firm thinking about what that duty actually looks like in practice?” (Professional Regulation/Strategy)
Why it works: Very specific and genuinely unsettling for the profession. Forces a real answer rather than a generic one about AI being a tool. The idea that a lawyer could be personally liable for not using AI is a genuinely novel legal development, making it a very pertinent topic!
“The FCA says AI has cut some supervisory cases from four hours to six minutes. If regulators can do that, does it change how much leverage law firms have when billing for compliance work?” (Professional Regulation/Strategy)
Why it works: Short and pointed. Connects a specific stat to a direct commercial threat to legal billing models.
“Garfield AI is now handling volumes of claims up to £10,000 and winning. At what point does that start eating into work that traditional law firms would have taken on?” (Professional Regulation/Strategy)
Why it works: Names a real competitor and asks a forward-looking question about where the boundary actually sits. Easy to remember.
UK M&A vs IPOs
Foreign companies are snapping up British ones but listings are looking pretty barren...
When you consider the sheer amount of global instability that we have been seeing over the past few years, it seems somewhat incredible that companies are confident enough to throw around vast sums of cash to buy other companies. Usually, companies abhor uncertainty and wait until things calm down but inflation, supply chain issues and nervy consumers have weakened some companies – and that has provided opportunities for others. There are other factors to add to the pot as well – like across the board rises in defence spending by governments who are getting increasingly paranoid about sabre-rattling by Russia and China (in addition to Trump taking his 80,000 soldiers with him).
Possible questions:
“UK takeover bids are now worth 27 times the value of new London listings. Does that feel like a temporary blip or a structural problem for London as a market?” (Corporate/M&A)
Why it works: This is a striking statistic that invites a genuine opinion! It shows that you are thinking about London’s competitiveness, not just individual deals.
“Getty and Shutterstock cleared the US Justice Department but then the CMA blocked their merger on conditions they found too onerous. How do you advise clients on deals where the regulators in different jurisdictions are this far apart?” (Corporate/M&A)
Why it works: This is specific and shows awareness of cross-border regulatory divergence. It’s a recurring theme in M&A that interviewers will have real views on.
“Castlelake made five bids for easyJet before getting a deal done. At what point does persistence in a takeover start creating legal risks around market manipulation or disclosure obligations?” (Corporate/M&A)
Why it works: This shows that you have followed the deal across multiple rounds and spotted a genuinely interesting example of legal tension. Spotting that persistent bidding creates its own legal tension around disclosure and market manipulation displays lateral thinking, which can be important for corporate lawyers.
AI model oversight
Tighter regulation and workarounds...
AI has had a relatively free rein so far – but it’s now getting to a stage where oversight is becoming much more of a necessity because its increased use is creating more sticky situations that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. A delicate balance has to be struck between allowing enough room for innovation and providing the right guardrails so everyone is protected.
Possible questions:
“The FCA wants powers to regulate large language models like Claude and ChatGPT directly. Is that realistic given that these are global products and the FCA’s jurisdiction stops at the UK border?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: Direct and slightly sceptical in tone. Shows you have thought about the limits of what a national regulator can actually do. Asking whether the FCA’s ambition is actually realistic given the global nature of these models signals that you think critically rather than just accepting regulatory announcements at face value.
“OpenAI and Google are selling AI services to Singapore-based subsidiaries of blacklisted Chinese groups. It’s apparently legal but controversial. Where does the line sit between what is technically permissible and what creates reputational or regulatory risk for the companies involved?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: Nuanced and shows awareness that legal and ethical lines are not always the same thing. Opens what could be an interesting conversation!
“20% of UK adults are already comfortable using AI to make financial decisions without any regulatory safety net in place. Does that create a mis-selling liability risk for firms whose clients use AI tools the firm has recommended?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: Connects a consumer trend to a specific legal risk in a way most candidates will not have thought about.
Defence M&A and spending
Whopper defence deals and big spending to come...
Defence spending is a very hot topic! Not only are governments jacking up their defence spending to higher percentages of GDP, companies themselves are adapting to this “new normal” and looking to consolidate where possible to broaden capabilities and/or to help with increasing production capacity.
Possible questions:
“Lockheed bought UK firm Ultra Maritime for $3.5bn and Thales bought Exail in the same week. Is maritime defence becoming its own M&A sub-sector or is this just a coincidence of timing?” (Corporate/Defence)
Why it works: Spots a pattern across two deals in the same week and asks whether it signals a trend. Shows analytical thinking rather than just headline recall.
“Germany is borrowing €800bn for rearmament, which is a historic shift for a country that has traditionally avoided defence debt. Does that scale of public spending create a wave of procurement and project finance legal work or is most of it handled by in-house government teams?” (Corporate/Defence)
Why it works: Connects a geopolitical shift to a specific question about what legal work is actually generated.
“The proposed Airbus, Leonardo and Thales space merger is heading for EU antitrust review. Given how politically sensitive European defence consolidation is, do you think competition law is the right tool to assess a deal like that?” (Corporate/Defence)
Why it works: Asks a slightly provocative question about whether antitrust rules are fit for purpose in the defence context. Invites a genuine debate.
Energy transition
Rising prices, extensions and pipelines...
Although most people (apart from those with vested interests, of course!) are keen to transition to cleaner energy sources, the uncomfortable truth is that we are having to rely on fossil fuels to tide us over to the time when more renewable capacity comes online. Unfortunately, during that time period we are going to see energy use sky-rocketing (data centres and EVs), so it certainly seems like we’re going to have to go a long way backwards before we can go forwards once more to a more sustainable world.
Possible questions:
“US solar power purchase agreement prices could more than double once Inflation Reduction Act subsidies expire. Do long-term energy contracts typically have mechanisms to absorb a shock that big or do they just break?” (Energy/Projects)
Why it works: Very specific and shows you understand that energy transition economics can scupper existing contractual arrangements.
“Sizewell B has been granted a 20-year life extension. Does extending the life of a nuclear plant require essentially the same legal process as building a new one or is it a much lighter touch?” (Energy/Projects)
Why it works: Specific, curious and shows genuine interest in how nuclear regulatory approvals actually work.
“Canada is planning five new LNG terminals and a 1,000km pipeline to reduce reliance on the US market. Projects like that typically take years and multiple governments to deliver. How do lawyers structure agreements for infrastructure that will span several election cycles?” (Energy/Projects)
Why it works: Shows awareness of the political risk in long-cycle infrastructure projects and asks a genuinely interesting question about how legal frameworks cope with it.
Prediction markets
Regulation and bans...
The bigger prediction markets get, the louder the calls get for regulation. They have tried to fly under the radar for quite some time but I think that the regulators are coming for the big players…
Possible questions:
“Polymarket is under CFTC investigation and Minnesota is banning prediction markets altogether. Is this the beginning of proper regulatory oversight or will these platforms find ways to stay ahead of it?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: Current and shows awareness of a fast-moving regulatory story. Invites a genuine view rather than a rehearsed answer.
“Prediction markets currently sit outside gambling law, which means under-21s can use them in the US. If regulators reclassify them as gambling, what happens to the contracts and positions already on these platforms?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: Shows you have thought about the legal consequences of reclassification, not just the political debate around it.
“US senators have already banned themselves and their staff from using prediction markets. Does self-regulation like that tend to accelerate formal legislation or delay it?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: Short and slightly provocative. Invites the interviewer to share a view on how regulatory cycles actually work.