How Hong Kong Law Firms Mark Case Studies: Criteria, Structure, and Common Mistakes
The assessment centre case study is often the most challenging hurdle standing between you and a coveted vacation scheme or training contract at a top Hong Kong law firm. It’s designed to test more than just your legal knowledge; it’s a simulation of the high-stakes, time-sensitive work you will perform as a trainee. Many candidates feel it's a "black box," unsure of what assessors are truly looking for.
We will break down the exact marking criteria used by top firms for you in this article.
What Assessors Are Looking For
Firms are assessing your potential as a future lawyer. They look for a specific blend of hard and soft skills. Success isn't about finding a single "right" answer, but about demonstrating a competent and professional thought process. Here are the core competencies you are being marked on.
Structure and Prioritisation: Can you create a logical roadmap for your analysis? Assessors want to see that you can quickly identify the most critical issues and address them first, rather than getting lost in minor details. A clear structure is evidence of a clear mind.
Commerciality: This is about understanding the client's business objectives. Your advice should be practical and grounded in the commercial realities of the situation, considering factors like client goals, costs versus benefits, market feasibility, and actionable next steps.
Legal Reasoning: While deep, black-letter law knowledge isn't always required, you must demonstrate strong issue-spotting skills. This involves identifying potential legal hurdles and applying foundational legal principles at an appropriate level of detail for the time given.
Assumptions and Numeracy: Complex scenarios often have information gaps. Strong candidates make reasonable, stated assumptions to move forward. If the task involves numbers, your arithmetic must be clean and your financial reasoning sound.
Communication: Whether your output is a written memo or a verbal presentation, clarity is paramount. Your arguments should be concise, well-reasoned, and persuasive, using evidence from the case materials to support your conclusions.
Professionalism: Assessors are observing your behaviour. This includes effective time management, your ability to collaborate constructively in group exercises, and your resilience when put under pressure.
A Simple, Reusable Structure
Instead of panicking when the clock starts, you should immediately turn to a reliable framework. This structure works for almost any corporate, finance, or disputes scenario you might face.
Objective: Start by articulating the client’s core goal in a single, concise sentence. This acts as your North Star and ensures all subsequent analysis is relevant.
Key Issues: Identify the 3–5 most important issues the client faces. Group them by theme where possible (e.g., legal, commercial, operational, financial) to create a logical flow.
Options: Outline 2–3 viable paths the client could take. Briefly note the primary trade-offs for each option. This demonstrates that you have considered alternatives.
Analysis: This is the core of your work. Evaluate the key issues and options using facts from the case materials, your prudent assumptions, and an assessment of their potential impact on the client's objective.
Recommendation: Do not sit on the fence. Assessors want to see decisive thinking. Choose the best option and justify your choice using evidence from your analysis. Qualify your recommendation with clear conditions (e.g., "Proceed, subject to satisfactory due diligence...").
Risks and Mitigations: Identify the top 3 risks associated with your recommended course of action and propose practical ways to mitigate them.
Next Steps: Conclude with a brief, actionable list of what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when. Simple bullet points are effective here.
Timing Plan for a 45–60 Minute Case
A common point of failure is poor time management. To avoid this, go in with a clear plan for allocating your time.
5–7 mins: Skim and Mark-Up. Read through the materials quickly to get your bearings. Use a pen to highlight key facts, numbers, and the client's explicit request. Identify the main objective and jot down initial thoughts on the key issues.
15–20 mins: Build Your Structure. Flesh out your framework. Populate your key issues, options, and analysis sections with notes and evidence from the documents. This is where you do the heavy lifting.
10–15 mins: Draft or Rehearse. Begin writing your answer or structuring your verbal presentation. Focus on clear topic sentences and logical flow. Double-check any calculations.
5–10 mins: Refine and Finalise. Review your work. Add the risks, mitigations, and next steps. Proofread for clarity, spelling, and grammar. This final polish can make a significant difference.
Common Mistakes We See Students Make (and How to Fix Them)
Understanding what not to do is just as important as knowing what to do. Here are the most frequent stumbles we see candidates make, and how you can avoid them.
Mistake 1: The Data Dump
What it is: Instead of building an argument, the candidate simply lists facts and figures from the case documents in long, unstructured paragraphs. The answer reads like a summary, not an analysis.
Why it's a Problem: This signals to the assessor that you are overwhelmed by the information and cannot distinguish between critical and trivial points. It fails to demonstrate the core skill of prioritisation and forces the reader to do the hard work of finding your argument, which they will not do.
The Fix: Be the analyst, not the archivist. Use the structure provided above. Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that makes a point (e.g., "A key commercial risk is the valuation of the target."). Then, use data from the case study as evidence to support that point. Headings and sub-headings are your best friends—they guide the assessor through your logic.
Mistake 2: Sitting on the Fence
What it is: The candidate presents a "balanced" view, outlining the pros and cons of every option but ultimately failing to make a clear recommendation. The conclusion might say something like, "Therefore, the client could choose Option A or Option B."
Why it's a Problem: Clients pay lawyers for their professional judgment and decisive advice, not for a summary of possibilities. A non-answer is commercially useless and suggests you lack the confidence or analytical ability to weigh competing factors and make a call.
The Fix: Always pick a side. A well-justified recommendation, even if it's a difficult choice, is infinitely better than no recommendation. The key is to show your thinking. State your choice clearly, then justify it based on your analysis. Acknowledge the downsides of your choice and show how you would manage them through your proposed risks and mitigations. Use qualifying language: "We recommend proceeding, subject to..." to demonstrate prudent, decisive thinking.
Mistake 3: Relying on Hidden Assumptions
What it is: The candidate's analysis makes a logical leap that depends on an assumption that is never stated. For example, they conclude a market is attractive without stating they are assuming a certain growth rate.
Why it's a Problem: This makes your argument impossible to follow and easy to challenge. The assessor is left wondering, "Where did that come from?" It undermines the credibility of your entire analysis, making it seem like guesswork rather than reasoned logic.
The Fix: Make your thought process transparent. If you need to fill a gap in the information, state your assumption clearly. For example: "The case materials do not provide a growth rate for the industry. Assuming a conservative annual growth rate of 3%, in line with general economic forecasts, the market remains attractive." This shows you are being thoughtful and allows the assessor to evaluate the quality of your assumptions.
Mistake 4: Sloppy Numeracy
What it is: Simple arithmetic errors, misinterpreting financial data, or presenting numbers without units or context (e.g., "the profit is 500").
Why it's a Problem: In corporate and finance law, precision is everything. A misplaced decimal point can have multi-million dollar consequences. Numerical errors, no matter how small, instantly destroy your credibility and signal a lack of attention to detail—a fatal flaw for a prospective lawyer.
The Fix: Treat numbers with respect. Double-check all your calculations. If you are running out of time, it is better to clearly show your methodology (e.g., "Valuation = Net Profit x P/E Multiple") than to rush and present a wrong number. Always sense-check your answer: Does this number feel plausible in the context of the business?
Your Practice Plan
Theory is not enough. To excel, you must practice under timed conditions. We recommend a structured approach: attempt at least two cases per week, alternating between written and verbal formats. After each attempt, debrief your performance by comparing your answer against a model response to understand gaps in structure, scope, and commercial judgment.
To put this into action, you need the right resources.
Our Online Case Study Centre gives you 12-month access to over 15 timed case studies with model answers and expert tips tailored to Hong Kong assessment centres.
For personalised feedback, our Case Study Training provides a 1:1 simulation with our lawyer coaches, mirroring the high-pressure environment of a real assessment.
The analytical skills required for case studies are closely related to those tested by psychometric evaluations. Sharpen your inference, deduction, and interpretation skills with our Watson Glaser Academy.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long should my written answer be?
Clarity and conciseness are valued far more than length. Use clear headings and short, direct paragraphs. Always adhere strictly to any word count or page limit provided by the firm.
What if I run out of time?
It happens. If you are short on time, prioritise delivering a clear recommendation supported by your top 2-3 reasons, along with the most critical risks and next steps. A complete, tight answer is always better than a detailed but unfinished one.
Mastering the case study is a critical step towards securing your training contract. You don't have to prepare alone. If you're ready to move beyond theory and practice with resources designed by lawyers from top Hong Kong firms, explore the services mentioned above. Our comprehensive Law Firm Application Academy also includes dedicated assessment centre modules to ensure you are prepared for every stage of the process.