Mature Applicant - Training Contract

I am also a career changer in law. I am 43yo and all I can say is that I profoundly regret it to have abandoned my previous career in banking.
Law firms do not want us with them. Magic Circle? Silver circle? Forget them. Do not waste time and energy on their TC applications.
I even did some temp job as a paralegal in some magic circle firms for 2 years now and I learned that their structure of work and culture are suitable for young people only. Additionally, I have faced moments in which associates got scared with tough questions coming from experienced professionals (not just me but other senior professionals in the same circumstance) and they did not know how to manage it. In the end, they impose their perspectives/opinions with the classic “it is what it is…”
Except CMS, TLT, TW, and only a few others, I would challenge all top 100 firms, particularly those in the City, to publish how many mature students (>35-40yo) they have hired in the last 2-3 cohorts and how many have been retained following their qualification.

I'm going to be honest here, and say that I'm a little sceptical about this. Are you saying that you left a banking career, studied law and then ended-up paralegaling for two years?
What do you mean by "their structure of work and culture are suitable for young people only"?
Also, could you explain this a little more: "Additionally, I have faced moments in which associates got scared with tough questions coming from experienced professionals (not just me but other senior professionals in the same circumstance) and they did not know how to manage it. In the end, they impose their perspectives/opinions with the classic “it is what it is…” "

To that I add that obtaining a TC in a big law firm is super-tough even for people in their twenties. Lawcapital's experience might not be attributable to his or her age, but to the general level of competition for TCs. A busy junior Associate might also be excused for thinking that it is not his or her job to answer tough questions or indeed any other questions from a paralegal, other than questions such as "Do you want all of the exhibits in a separate file?"

It is indeed, very challenging to get a TC. However, I have heard from 2 partners from different (big) firms that "too senior people do not fit into their structure".
You are right re tough questions you mentioned above. The (MC) firm to whom I temporarily worked for had assigned a senior associate in the DR team to give us the guidelines on filtering documents prior to the court hearing. They were instructed by the defendant. As I have a deep experience in outlining strategic financial movements and agreements, I could, for example, questioned him why document "A" would be relevant rather than document "B". From my perspective, document A was too obvious and easily be invalidated as an evidence whereas doc B, could be unexpectedly proof malicious conduct from the plaintiff. The feedback I got was that he did not know what to answer and was going to ask the partner, which never occurred.
Last year, I was proofreading documents for the same firm in another project. In the meantime I was grabbing a coffee, I have been told by a senior manager of the firm that I should "disregard my experience" as they prefer younger people to be trained and hired.

You are confusing relevance with weight and probative value. In litigation, a party must disclose documents which are relevant to the issues in the case, whether or not the documents help that party's case. Your experience in a non-legal role misled you. If the Associate had followed your suggestion, the client could have been on the wrong end of a costs order.

I am impressed with your capacity to infer so many inconsiderable points as you have no details about the case, the facts, the strategy which the firm had in the HC, and, finally, the outcome.You are definitely not a lawyer.

The time you spent writing your post, you could have spent it searching how many mature students (>40s) are training in big law firms. Perhaps, you could learn about a significant number of career changers struggling to getting a TC. That's the real world. It is what it is.

Well, I tried to help, but you seem determined to have an away match.
You are unwittingly demonstrating why a law firm might prefer to recruit a fresh graduate instead of a mature candidate, at least if the mature candidate thinks that he or she knows it all.
You appear to think that you understand the use of documents in litigation, based on your experience in a non litigation role. Relevance is, however, not a matter of strategy. You are not paying attention to the procedural rules and the ethical considerations which govern the use of documents in disputes.
Belisarius, when recruiting the core of his army, refused all veterans from other formations, because old sweats would disrupt things by thinking that they knew best. Belisarius and his new army increased the size of the Byzantine Empire by 45%.

A slightly strange post. I would expect that the number of mature students training in large law firms is vanishingly small, for various reasons. @Stiffy Byng (who, contrary to your comment, is a vastly experienced barrister) has highlighted one. Another factor is the business model of law firms. Firms hope that, after 10 to 15 years, some of the cohort of trainees will become the next generation of partners and, from there, go on to grow the firm. If an individual joins as a trainee at 45, they're going to be 55 to 60 when they're finally made-up with little remaining of their career to put in the hard yards of building a practice.

Considering the vast network and experience in business, mature students can bring significant profits to the firms quite before any normal cohort of trainees. Considering the number of bylaws, international agreements, partnerships, M&A transactions, project funds and even commercial disputes I have faced with in my nearly two decades of professional life, I can guarantee you that I do not need 15 years of experience to learn the intricacies of law and bring solid results to any law firm as a partner.

I'll pick-up on your last two posts.
Your skills/experience: I have no doubt that you have a substantial amount of experience through working in financial services, although I remain slightly surprised that you walked away from a career in banking for a paralegal role at the age of 40+. What made you do that? Leaving that aside, the question is whether your experience is directly relevant, and valuable, to the work that lawyers do at the types of firms you reference. Being on the client side of transactions, and understanding the commercial drivers behind deals, is useful but there is likely a substantial dose of scepticism at law firms that you know things others don't. When you look at the market, there are very few individuals who make the move from business into the law or from in-house back into private practice. There are a number of reasons for that, but the key one is that firms don't see the tangible, relevant value in that business experience that would set you apart from others. What roles did you have in the banking sector which gave you the experience that you think is now valuable as a lawyer?
Your age and ability to build a practice: You're 43 now so will be in your mid-40s by the time you qualify. Whilst you say you have a network you could leverage to bring in work, the reality is that you will be in your early 50s (at least) by the time you're promoted to partner. At that point you're unlikely to be particularly profitable - junior partners rarely are, and it takes a number of years before they're hitting their straps. Most partners hang-up their boots in their late 50s/early 60s. The fact is that a firm is unlikely to take on the significant risk (and cost) of training and nurturing someone that would, at best, be a partner for a very small number of years. Which practice area do you think would lend itself best to your experience and what, thinking ahead, might be the basis for your business case? It's not enough to simply say "I have a vast network and experience in business": you need to be able to build a practice.
Your ability to "fit": the simple fact is that law firms like easily malleable, "trainable" individuals who will do as they're told and not give the impression that they know better than their peers or seniors. Trainees and NQs are generally seen as cannon fodder: resources that can be utilised to get the work done (particularly the menial tasks) with little or no complaint. The sense is that those who have come to the law late are less likely to work in that way. My trainee cohort back in the late 1990s included 4 with past careers. One wasn't kept on, and the other three left within a year of qualification. Your posts have already demonstrated a little of that "I know best" characteristic, which is exactly what firms don't want to see. Your quick dismissal of @Stiffy Byng's comments on your approach to disclosure in litigation was telling. Your original anecdote indicated you didn't understand the test for disclosure, yet when this was pointed out you reacted badly. If you want to be a lawyer then you have to expect that your position on points will be challenged.
Finally, and please don't take offence at this, but your written English isn't the best and that may be holding you back if your written style in your paralegal role, or in TC applications, is similar to how you've posted on here.

I'll pick-up on your last two posts.
Your skills/experience: I have no doubt that you have a substantial amount of experience through working in financial services, although I remain slightly surprised that you walked away from a career in banking for a paralegal role at the age of 40+. What made you do that? Leaving that aside, the question is whether your experience is directly relevant, and valuable, to the work that lawyers do at the types of firms you reference. Being on the client side of transactions, and understanding the commercial drivers behind deals, is useful but there is likely a substantial dose of scepticism at law firms that you know things others don't. When you look at the market, there are very few individuals who make the move from business into the law or from in-house back into private practice. There are a number of reasons for that, but the key one is that firms don't see the tangible, relevant value in that business experience that would set you apart from others. What roles did you have in the banking sector which gave you the experience that you think is now valuable as a lawyer?
Your age and ability to build a practice: You're 43 now so will be in your mid-40s by the time you qualify. Whilst you say you have a network you could leverage to bring in work, the reality is that you will be in your early 50s (at least) by the time you're promoted to partner. At that point you're unlikely to be particularly profitable - junior partners rarely are, and it takes a number of years before they're hitting their straps. Most partners hang-up their boots in their late 50s/early 60s. The fact is that a firm is unlikely to take on the significant risk (and cost) of training and nurturing someone that would, at best, be a partner for a very small number of years. Which practice area do you think would lend itself best to your experience and what, thinking ahead, might be the basis for your business case? It's not enough to simply say "I have a vast network and experience in business": you need to be able to build a practice.
Your ability to "fit": the simple fact is that law firms like easily malleable, "trainable" individuals who will do as they're told and not give the impression that they know better than their peers or seniors. Trainees and NQs are generally seen as cannon fodder: resources that can be utilised to get the work done (particularly the menial tasks) with little or no complaint. The sense is that those who have come to the law late are less likely to work in that way. My trainee cohort back in the late 1990s included 4 with past careers. One wasn't kept on, and the other three left within a year of qualification. Your posts have already demonstrated a little of that "I know best" characteristic, which is exactly what firms don't want to see. Your quick dismissal of @Stiffy Byng's comments on your approach to disclosure in litigation was telling. Your original anecdote indicated you didn't understand the test for disclosure, yet when this was pointed out you reacted badly. If you want to be a lawyer then you have to expect that your position on points will be challenged.
Finally, and please don't take offence at this, but your written English isn't the best and that may be holding you back if your written style in your paralegal role, or in TC applications, is similar to how you've posted on here.

The point is not that we know it all, but it is the significant experience we have on the fields that lawyers don't and insist to reject.
The fact I struggle to understand is law firms and chambers disregard that, mature students, like myself, were your clients in the past. This means that, we used to instruct lawyers and teach them what the business is. We know, by experience, the end-to-end of things; all the synergy and conflicting points of the business. Lawyers know the legal elements, but do not have the business perspective. In my virtually 20 years of experience, I can count on my hand the occasions I met a lawyer (from big firms) that contributed to the business covering commercial and legal needs. The discussion is always "how you aim to do this so I get you covered" and never "I understand you aim X so, you what if you go through this way to obtain 2X and still remain covered?". Then, here comes the experience of a mature student. For example, if a bond's company is issued in a certain period of the year followed by adding assets as a collateral, I can easily read and actually discover the manoeuvre they have made and the impact they aimed on their pockets beyond the agreement written by lawyers (usually trainees and associates). This is the real commercial awareness.
Considering that @chalks have reviewed you are an experienced barrister, I can confirm that your previous contributions ground my allegations. Although I do value your will to help, I cannot corroborate with your arguments, I am afraid. You provided wrong inferences based on your experiences and assumptions which, in turn, were made over quite superficial information. At the moment I highlighted that, you (mistakenly) stated I did not pay attention to the context of a litigation and, lately, said that mature students think they "know it all", which is, again, fully wrong.
Career changers, like myself, are fully open to learn the intricacies of the law and also to contribute to the firm/chamber from the outset (of course, from a business perspective). Being an experienced professional and giving the competition we face in the legal sector lately, I firmly believe that a big advantage will have those who combine both universes, business and legal, and thus, translate this into tailored/solid solutions for client needs.
I think that here, both of us, might have a point of agreement.