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 export controls and sovereignty...
Anthropic;'s dramatic export ban, the European AI sovereignty debate and Cohere wanting to ride to the rescue?
Anthropic was suddenly made unavailable to anyone – institution or individual – that was not American! The company only got 90 minutes to comply! This naturally caused panic and there were increased calls to somehow decrease reliance on the dominant American AI players.
Possible questions:
“Anthropic was given just 90 minutes to stop exporting its models to foreign nationals. How does a company actually comply with a deadline that short and what does that mean for clients relying on continuity of service?” (Regulatory/National Security)
Why it works: Very specific detail that shows you read closely. Raises a genuinely interesting operational and contractual question that should yield a very interesting conversation!
“Europe is being described as lacking the companies needed to build leverage in the AI supply chain. Does that gap create an opening for firms here to advise on European AI sovereignty strategy?” (Regulatory/National Security)
Why it works: Turns a policy debate into a question about the firm’s own positioning. Shows commercial thinking, not just awareness of the news.
“Starmer is seeking a British carve-out from the US export ban. If he gets one, what kind of legal framework would actually need to sit behind a special arrangement like that?” (Regulatory/National Security)
Why it works: Current and specific. Shows you are thinking about the practical legal mechanics behind a political headline.
The aftermath of the SpaceX listing...
SpaceX's share price continued to climb and it used the momentum to make an acquisition and sell bonds...
SpaceX’s IPO was an absolute flyer! Musk wasted no time in leaning into the SpaceX feelgood as the company announced the acquisition of Cursor’s parent (which could be its Meta/Instagram moment) and a sizeable bond sale.
Possible questions:
“SpaceX bought Anysphere for $60bn within days of listing. How quickly can a newly public company actually move on an acquisition that size without running into disclosure problems?” (Capital markets/Corporate)
Why it works: Specific and timely. Shows you understand that post-IPO deal speed creates its own legal risk.
“Musk is planning a $20bn bond sale to repay a bridge loan from folding xAI and X into SpaceX. Does that kind of related-party financing raise red flags for bondholders or their lawyers?” (Capital markets/Corporate)
Why it works: Picks up on a detail most candidates will skip past. Shows genuine interest in deal structuring.
“Banks split a $500m fee pool on the SpaceX listing. Does a fee pool that size change how aggressively banks compete for mandates on the Anthropic and OpenAI listings still to come?” (Capital markets/Corporate)
Why it works: Light and easy to deliver but shows you are thinking about market dynamics beyond the deal itself.
AI's threat to professional services...
Private equity is wary of exposure to companies that have businesses that could be rendered obsolete by AI...
After a period where PE firms have been hoovering up software and professional services companies, they have become increasingly wary about having exposure to companies whose business models could become vulnerable to AI.
Possible questions:
“Private equity is reportedly becoming wary of investing in law firms because AI threatens the business model. Does that concern match what you’re seeing inside the firm or does it feel overstated from where you sit?” (Professional regulation/Strategy)
Why it works: Direct and a little bold but invites a genuinely honest answer. Shows confidence without being confrontational.
“Legora has quadrupled its client list in a year and is doubling headcount. What do you think distinguishes it from rivals such as Harvey and would you say that it is more desirable to build models in-house or customise ones from specialist providers?” (Professional regulation/Strategy)
Why it works: Shows interest in real legal tech companies but also provides a handy insight into what the differences actually are (something that you could use in interviews at other companies). I would suggest that you try to find out which model(s) they use before your interview though, if you’re going to ask this question.
“Accenture’s market cap has roughly halved since its post-Covid peak as investors worry about AI displacing consultancy work. Do you think law firms face the same risk or is legal work harder to automate than management consulting?” (Professional regulation/Strategy)
Why it works: Comparative question that invites a real opinion. Shows you are thinking about law relative to other professional services.
The growing trend of overseas companies buying British ones...
Overseas buyers have been spending a lot of money buying British companies! Will this trend continue??
Overseas buyers seem to like buying British businesses. This presumably provides much-needed capital for the acquired companies and I suspect that there’s an element of opportunism here of acquirors taking advantage while the macroeconomic background of the UK is weak (and uncertain).
Possible questions:
“Overseas buyers have spent £128bn on British companies this year, more than three times last year’s pace. Is depressed valuation the whole story or is something else drawing foreign buyers to London right now?” (Corporate/Cross-border M&A)
Why it works: Invites the interviewer to share real market insight rather than just confirming a statistic. Shows curiosity rather than just recall.
“It feels like Amex buying TheFork just another example of a company buying its way into new customer relationships rather than growing organically. Is that the kind of deal logic you’re seeing more of generally?” (Corporate/Cross-border M&A)
Why it works: Demonstrates analytical thinking rather than just headline knowledge. Again, this could get an interesting answer that you can use again! There’s nothing like a bit of recycling!
“If this pace of inbound M&A continues, does that change how busy the corporate team here expects to be over the next year?” (Corporate/Cross-border M&A)
Why it works: Simple, direct and personal to the firm. Easy to say with confidence and shows genuine interest in their workload.
Nuclear and energy infrastructure deals...
Rolls-Royce is on a roll and there's another development in fusion...
Rolls-Royce has had a great week in terms of nuclear-related announcements! It seems that the hard work is paying off and that this has coincided with the general push we’re seeing in alternative sources of energy.
Possible questions:
“Rolls-Royce just signed its third state-level nuclear deal after the UK and Czech governments. Does winning repeat government endorsements like that make the legal process faster each time or does each country still start from scratch?” (Energy/Projects)
Why it works: Specific and shows you understand that cross-border nuclear deals involve heavy state-level negotiation, not just commercial terms.
“Fusion construction spending is forecast to hit $73bn a year by 2040. Is that timeline realistic enough yet for firms to be building out a dedicated fusion practice or is it still too early?” (Energy/Projects)
Why it works: Forward-looking and slightly provocative in a good way. Shows you are thinking years ahead, not just reacting to this week’s news.
“Rolls-Royce’s deal with Sweden took four years to close. What actually takes that long in a nuclear supply agreement between two governments?” (Energy/Projects)
Why it works: Simple and curious. Opens a conversation about the practical realities of long-cycle energy deals.
European pullback from US tech...
Palantir's having issues in France, Germany and the UK while momentum grows for a European AI champion...
Palantir is being dropped by governments and organisations in France, Germany and the UK while European bodies are trying to push European alternatives to the dominant American giants. There is a lot of needle right now…
Possible questions:
“France replaced Palantir with a domestic rival just months after renewing a ten-year contract. What does that say about how durable long-term tech contracts with government clients actually are right now?” (TMT/Geopolitical risk)
Why it works: Very current and shows you understand that political risk can override contract length even in long-term public sector deals. This highlights just how robust “long-term” deals really are.
“Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland are all reviewing or cutting Palantir contracts around the same time. Does that look like a coordinated European shift away from US tech providers or is each country acting independently?” (TMT/Geopolitical risk)
Why it works: Shows pattern recognition across multiple countries and invites a genuinely interesting strategic answer.
“SpaceX is pushing back on EU plans to reserve satellite spectrum for European players. Is that the kind of dispute that gets resolved through lobbying or does it end up properly tested in court?” (TMT/Geopolitical risk)
Why it works: Simple and direct. Shows curiosity about how regulatory disputes between a major company and a regulator actually play out.