5 Questions to Quickly Turn Law Applicants into Interviews

Smarter legal shortlisting: Turn 300 graduate applications into 30 interviews.

Law graduates are rarely short on ambition. The huge volume of applications for graduate placements bear witness to that. But modern applicants’ CVs are often short of the traditional signals employers would look for. Disruptions to placements, part-time jobs or personal responsibilities often leave gaps in resumes that simply don’t tell the whole story.

With one click “easy apply” options and AI polished answers, applications become almost homogenous and high-volume recruitment shortlisting can feel like swimming in a sea of similarity.

The solution to this isn’t to add more questions, or interview rounds, or even banning AI tools.

The solution is to set clear expectations and assess how candidates think, rather than how they write. To ask for short, specific responses that draw on personal experience.

If you’re concerned about the use of AI (and don’t have an applicant tracking system that can identify AI supported applications) then rather than using guesswork, opt for transparency. Consider inviting a two-line note saying what was used and why. This simple step encourages honesty, reveals reasoning, and makes your sifting process faster and more effective, whether you use an applicant tracking system (ATS) or a manual process.

This blog shows how law firms can use a few simple questions to make high-volume shortlisting smarter, and more effective, without adding to the administrative burden hiring teams face.

It includes:

• Quick incisive questions to help you score candidates in seconds
• Five example questions with a simple 1-5 scoring system and an explainer as to why each question works
• Examples of what a standout answer looks like
• A ready-to-use score sheet to paste into your ATS or print for manual review.

How to use the questions (and score in seconds)

Add two or three of the questions below to your graduate, vacation scheme, or apprenticeship templates in your legal recruitment software or ATS. We suggest you cap each answer at 200 words. Place the 1-5 scoring criteria beside every field so reviewers can click a score and move on. Keep everything else – right to work, preferred office, start month – as simple tick box options.

No ATS?

This still works. If you can’t configure your ATS workflows or are using a manual system, then simply create a shared form (or Word/PDF pack) using the same questions and the 1-5 criteria. Collate the responses in a spreadsheet, add five columns for scores and then total them automatically. Reviewers will still spend seconds, not minutes, per answer.

Candidate instructions to place above the questions (important):

“Please answer from your own experience. It is fine to use tools to check spelling or structure. If you do, for transparency,  please add a two-line note at the end of the application telling us what you used and why. Please note, we are scoring for judgement and clarity, not polish.”

Q1. Demonstrates fit without fluff

Ask: Name a recent initiative, project or piece of news from our firm that caught your attention and, in no more than two sentences, say why it matters to you.

Why this helps: This reveals real research and whether the candidate can link your firm’s work to client, community or market impact.

Score 1-5 as follows:

1. Misses the brief: generic praise, no specific item mentioned, wrong or copied detail, ignores the sentence limit
2. Thin: names a practice area or theme, rather than a specific initiative, reasoning is vague
3. Adequate: cites a real item, gives a correct but generic reason
4. Strong: accurate and concise, clear client or community impact demonstrated, written in plain English
5. Standout: as 4, plus a short original insight (risk, timing, stakeholder angle) and a nod to a published firm value or programme, for example: pro bono, sustainability, inclusion.

What would a standout answer look like?
A standout answer would cite a genuine page or announcement, explain why it mattered to the client group, and also connect it to something you have published, such as a pro bono outcome or ESG report.

Q2. Shows strength in action, not theory

Ask: Tell us one strength you rely on and give a personal example where it changed the outcome. In one line say how you would use it in the role you are applying.

Why this helps: This question replaces lists of character traits with proof. Any setting counts: paid work, caring, club leadership, a side project or a sport.

Score 1-5 as follows:

1. Vague: uses buzzwords only, no example given
2. Loose: names a strength, but the example is off topic or unclear
3. Adequate: relevant strength with a real example, but the link to the role is basic
4. Strong: clear strength and specific example given, neat link to trainee or support work
5. Standout: as 4, plus a brief reflection on the outcome or learning that aligns with something your firm values – client service, collaboration, inclusion etc.,

What a standout answer looks like:
A short story with a result – fewer errors, a calmer queue, a deadline met. Concluded with a one-liner that links how that habit would help your clients or teams.

Q3. Tests values with evidence, not slogans

Ask: Which of our stated values resonates most with you, and how have you shown it? Please share a relevant “about” page with candidates if you have one.

Why this helps: This checks alignment without forcing candidates to guess at internal culture. They have to tie a value to a behaviour.

Score 1-5 as follows:

1. Slogan: restates the value with no proof
2. Thin: vague anecdote; weak link to the value
3. Adequate: real value chosen, simple, relevant example
4. Strong: specific example, clear outline of the candidate’s role and outcome
5. Standout: as 4, plus one line on why the value matters in your firm’s context. For example, client trust, quality, inclusive teams or community impact.

What a standout answer looks like:
One value, one moment, one outcome. Finished with a sentence on how the behaviour supports client work or team results at your firm.

Q4. Examines curiosity and approach

Ask: What part of our vacation scheme or early-careers programme are you most curious to experience, and how will you make the most of it?

Why this helps: This filters for thoughtful interest and practical plans without demanding prior legal experience.

Score 1-5 as follows:

1. Generic: “I want to learn about the law” or “gain experience” – no specifics
2. Vague: broad legal area named, plan is unclear or unrealistic
3. Adequate: cites a real element (training, mentoring, pro bono) and a simple plan
4. Strong: specific element identified, with a practical plan to contribute and learn.
5. Standout: as 4, plus a concise link to their own skills or goals that align with a strand of your published programme, for example, seat rotations, mentoring, DEI initiatives.

What a standout answer looks like:
This would reference something you made public and demonstrates how they would prepare, participate and reflect.

Q5. Checks clear communication from lived experience

Ask: Describe a time you helped someone outside your course or team understand a complex idea. In no more than 200 words, write what you said so they could act, and include the next step you suggested.

Why this helps: Client care begins with clarity. This prompt pushes candidates to draw on real life experience, e.g., teaching a grandparent to use online banking, coaching a teammate, explaining a tenancy clause. Allowing you to assess tone and judgement quickly.

Score 1-5 as follows:

1. Unclear: vague story, filled with jargon; no next step demonstrated and ignores the word limit.
2. Patchy: some simplification, key point remains unclear, tone not quite right
3. Serviceable: mostly clear, sensible next step, some minor slips
4. Strong: crisp and accurate, friendly and practical. Well-structured and easy to follow
5. Standout: as 4, plus sharp prioritisation and a brief risk signpost that matches your firm’s client-care style

What a standout answer looks like:
This would be written in plain English, with a clear action the other person could take and a single sentence that shows foresight, for example, “If X happens, do Y”.

Quick score sheet (paste this direct into your ATS – or print)

Keep a single shortlist view in your law firm’s ATS or use this as a one-page checklist for manual review. The aim is for a decision in under a minute.

Hygiene:
on time ☐ followed instructions ☐ (word cap, format)

Q1 Firm fit (initiative/news):
1☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

Q2 Strength in action:
1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

Q3 Values with evidence:
1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

Q4 Curiosity & approach:
1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

Q5 Communication (lived experience):
1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

Pass rules:

Candidates must achieve an average score of 3 out of 5 or higher, with no individual score below 2.

Applications with an average or borderline score between 2.7-2.9 should be reviewed a second time before a final decision is made.

Candidates who meet the pass threshold should be progressed, either by directing to self-serve interview slots, or the invited to the next available panel.

Unsuccessful candidates should receive a prompt, considerate and personalised decline notification on the same day.

Feature Spotlight – How Reach ATS helps you shortlist faster 

Reach ATS is a UK-based applicant tracking system, purposefully designed to support your unique hiring needs. With extensive experience in building ATS solutions for law firms, we help clients hire faster and more effectively.  

Here’s how we do it:  

Smart questions that fit your sector
We offer a library of pre-written questions that have been tailored to different legal jobs and experience levels, from graduate trainees to senior partners. The questions have been designed to get specific examples from candidates, and the system includes a simple 1-5 scoring system (just like the examples on this blog) supporting swifter, more transparent shortlisting. 

Increased internal collaboration
Our smart system includes a dedicated hiring manager portal, cutting out the “noise” and helping managers focus only on the roles they are hiring for, while our central dashboard offers HR teams clear visibility of all live vacancies.  

The entire hiring team can view candidates progress, handle approvals, and review documents within the system without relying on separate email trails. This creates a single, clear (and auditable) timeline for the entire hiring process.  

Automation
Scheduled, personalised communications via email and/or SMS ensuring candidates remain engaged and updated. Task alerts and notifications keep hiring teams on track and workflows flowing. Self-serve interview scheduling offers a level of convenience to candidates and removes the back-and-forth of manual admin, freeing hiring teams to focus on finding the very best talent for the role.