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.
The AI slowdown pact
Altman, Musk and Amodei actually agreed on something for once - and it wasn’t good news for AI’s pace...
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei published an essay calling for the AI industry to slow the pace at which it improves model capabilities. Somewhat incredibly, rivals Sam Altman and Elon Musk agreed with him on measures including giving independent evaluators ongoing access to every frontier AI lab. Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders even found common ground calling for more guardrails but Nvidia and Meta pushed back, insisting the industry can police itself. It’s a genuinely rare moment of consensus among AI’s biggest rivals but it’s also one that raises real questions about what a slower AI race would actually mean commercially for the labs themselves and for the lawyers who advise them.
Possible questions:
“If AI labs actually slow down, is that good or bad news for firms building AI advisory practices?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: This works because it takes the obvious assumption – that more AI activity automatically means more legal work – and flips it. Asking about the opposite case is a simple way to show you’ve actually thought about a story rather than just skimmed the headline.
“Amodei wants outside evaluators embedded permanently inside AI labs. Is there a role for law firms in setting that up?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: This works because it turns a big, abstract policy debate into one specific, practical question: who actually does the paperwork? Looking for the concrete piece of legal work hiding inside a large story is a habit worth building.
“Should AI executives be personally liable if their models cause serious harm?” (Financial Regulation/TMT)
Why it works: This works because it’s short enough to remember under pressure and asks a genuinely live, slightly provocative question rather than a safe one. A one-line question that invites a real opinion tends to work far better than a long, hedged one.
Turkey’s fund freeze crisis
Turkey’s stock market boom turned out to be built on sand - and now funds are being frozen and frozen out...
Turkish authorities have frozen trading in funds run by seven asset managers and ordered 130 more to be liquidated after a speculative bubble pushed Istanbul’s stock market to artificial highs that have now collapsed, wiping out the savings of thousands of retail investors in the process. The capital markets regulator has referred 38 people to prosecutors for suspected market manipulation and senior figures at four investment groups have already been arrested. Index provider MSCI is threatening to downgrade Turkey from emerging to frontier market status. It’s a genuinely dramatic unwind and one that’s likely to keep generating legal work long after the initial panic has settled.
Possible questions:
“Could this create advisory work for firms helping foreign investors get their money out of Turkey?” (Financial Regulation/Restructuring)
Why it works: This works because it moves past the drama of the story and goes straight to where the money actually is: who needs a lawyer – and for what? That’s a useful instinct to apply to any news story, not just this one.
“Does a scandal like this make emerging markets work more or less attractive for firms to specialise in?” (Financial Regulation/Emerging Markets)
Why it works: This works because it’s a genuinely open question with no obvious right answer, which tends to produce a much better, more thoughtful answer than a question that only has one sensible response.
“With 38 people referred to prosecutors, is there client work here beyond the funds themselves?” (Financial Regulation/White Collar)
Why it works: This works because it looks past the most obvious client, the funds themselves, to the wider ecosystem around a story: brokers, custodians, and individuals. Asking who else might need advice is a good way to find a less obvious angle on any story.
Europe’s defence deals go local
European defence sellers are turning down American money because of politics, not price...
Dutch military supplier Robin Radar Systems is up for sale but has stipulated it wants a European buyer. This reflects a wider trend of European governments becoming increasingly sensitive about foreign takeovers in sensitive areas like defence, technology and energy. Some defence start-ups are going even further, saying that they will only sell to European buyers to protect their government contracts even though American bidders often offer higher valuations. Deal advisers are now engaging with governments and militaries much earlier in the process to head off political objections before they derail a sale.
Possible questions:
“Does ‘Europe only’ selling create more legal work, or just fewer buyers to sell to?” (Corporate/M&A)
Why it works: This works because it forces a genuine trade-off rather than a simple yes or no. Restricting buyers isn’t obviously good or bad for legal work and thinking through both sides out loud tends to produce a far better answer than picking a side too quickly.
“Is there a new advisory niche in screening buyers for political acceptability before a deal even starts?” (Corporate/National Security)
Why it works: This works because it names a specific, narrow service line rather than making a vague comment about “M&A being busy.” Spotting a precise gap in the market is far more convincing than a general observation about a sector.
“Could a firm build a real reputation specifically around cross-border defence deals right now?” (Corporate/M&A)
Why it works: This works because it’s about timing and positioning, not just legal knowledge. Asking whether now is the moment to specialise shows you’re thinking like someone building a career!
Data centres hit the brakes
Texas just paused its data centre gold rush and a nuclear IPO got pulled because of it...
Texas has halted all new data centre approvals until an audit confirms new projects can actually connect to the power grid, a striking reversal for a state that developers have been racing to build in! The pause has already had knock-on effects: nuclear supply company Holtec pulled its planned $900m IPO, citing a sudden shift in sentiment around the AI data centre economy, although it plans to return to the market within three to six months. It’s a reminder that even in the most business-friendly states, infrastructure and political limits can catch up with AI’s growth fast.
Possible questions:
“Does a pause like Texas’s create work advising developers on delayed projects, or does it just kill the work?” (Energy/Projects)
Why it works: This works because it challenges the obvious assumption that a pause is simply bad news for lawyers. Questioning whether a setback for one group actually creates work for another is a genuinely useful way to read any disruptive story.
“Holtec pulled its IPO but plans to return within months. Is there a fee opportunity in that gap?” (Corporate/Capital Markets)
Why it works: This works because it spots a narrow window of opportunity that most people would skim past, the gap between a company pulling back and coming back. Noticing the in-between moments in a story, not just the headline events, is a good habit to build.
“Could firms get ahead of this by advising other states before they follow Texas’s lead?” (Energy/Public Law)
Why it works: This works because it’s forward-looking rather than reactive, asking how a firm could get ahead of a trend rather than just respond to it once everyone else has already noticed.
The EU’s Kids Act
Brussels wants a hard age limit on social media and tech companies now have to build for it...
The EU is set to ban social media, some gaming platforms and AI chatbots for under-15s without parental supervision. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is setting out plans for no personal social media accounts under 15 and no accounts at all under 13. The so-called Kids Act follows sustained political pressure from EU member states and will require platforms to build genuine age verification into products used across the entire bloc. For any company operating online in Europe, this isn’t a niche compliance issue, it’s a fundamental product design requirement.
Possible questions:
“Does a law like this create real compliance work, or is it mostly a PR headache for tech companies?” (TMT/Media Regulation)
Why it works: This works because it cuts through the political framing of a story to ask a simpler, more useful question: is this actually hard to comply with? Looking past the headline politics to the practical burden underneath is a good instinct to practise.
“Would a firm rather be advising Brussels here, or the tech companies pushing back?” (TMT/Public Affairs)
Why it works: This works because it forces a genuine choice between two sides of the same story rather than a neutral summary of both. A slightly provocative either/or question tends to get a much more interesting answer than asking generally about “the impact.”
“Could this create work for firms well beyond the usual tech clients?” (TMT/Commercial)
Why it works: This works because it asks who else, beyond the obvious clients, might be affected by a story. Following the ripple effect of a law beyond its most obvious target is a strong way to find a less crowded angle.
The WFH “sit down” rule
Bosses who say no to working from home now have to explain themselves face to face...
The UK government is planning to require employers to sit down with staff in person if they reject a request to work from home, adding a new procedural layer to existing flexible working rights. The Employment Rights Act still stops short of giving employees an absolute right to work remotely, and employers can still refuse for legitimate business reasons, but the new face-to-face requirement raises the practical and reputational stakes of getting the process wrong.
Possible questions:
“Is this the kind of rule firms could turn into a training product for HR teams?” (Employment Law)
Why it works: This works because it spots a concrete, sellable idea hiding inside a dry procedural change. Turning a boring compliance detail into “is this actually a product?” is a genuinely useful commercial instinct to practise.
“Does a rule like this create more disputes, or just more paperwork?” (Employment Law)
Why it works: This works because it’s genuinely open, more disputes or more paperwork, rather than assuming you already know the answer, which invites a much more honest, experience-based response than a leading question would.
“Could this be an opportunity to advise employers before the rule even bites?” (Employment Law/Commercial)
Why it works: This works because it’s about prevention rather than reaction. Asking whether there’s an opportunity to advise before a problem happens shows a different, more commercially minded instinct than waiting for a dispute to actually happen.