Competencies Scenario

Amazon Payments Work

C: I worked on a major payments matter at the intersection of competition and payments regulation, focusing on the EU Commission's commitments requiring Apple to open aspects of its NFC infrastructure to third parties. The key challenge was that the legal analysis depended heavily on understanding the underlying technology (NFC access, Secure Element, and Host Card Emulation).

A: I approached this in three stages.

1. Analysed the Commission's decision and commitments in detail to understand both the competition concerns and the practical access being mandated.

2. Cross-referenced EBA Q&As with the wider payments regulatory framework to assess how supervisory expectations aligned with the Commission's position.

3. Recognising that legal materials alone were insufficient, I independently reviewed technical demos and developer resources to understand how Apple's payments architecture worked in practice. This allowed me to distinguish between Apple's native functionality and the residual limitations third-party providers would face.

I consolidated my findings into a structured research table to support the team's client advice.

R: My analysis was used directly in the matter, enabling a clearer assessment of how the commitments would operate in practice from both a technical and regulatory perspective. It also allowed me to engage confidently with a novel issue where legal and technical considerations were closely intertwined.

L: I learned that understanding the legal framework is only part of the task—it's equally important to understand the system being regulated.

Going beyond traditional legal research methods

L: This reinforced my ability, and interest, in bridging technical architecture and legal analysis in complex, fast-evolving areas.

Amazon Payments Work Competencies

1. Become a subject matter expert - bridged technical architecture with regulation

2. Be proactive - independently reviewed technical demos

3. Having an innovative mindset - going beyond legal resources

Multi-jursidctional Clinical Trial Agreements

(Data Protection)

C: Worked on Clinical Trial Agreements across the Netherlands, Poland and France, incorporating GDPR amendments into CTAs and DP annexes for a biotech client.

A: Reviewed consistency between the CTA and annex, corrected drafting inconsistencies and resolved conflicting provisions. Recognised early that each jurisdiction reflected different GDPR derogations, so the Dutch drafting couldn't simply be replicated. Flagged this to the team and coordinated with local counsel.

R: Prevented assumptions that would have delayed negotiations later and ensured each jurisdiction received tailored data protection drafting.

L: Learnt that data protection isn't just knowing GDPR—it's understanding how local implementation affects commercial agreements and spotting those issues early.

L (Role): Cross-border SaaS, licensing and technology agreements raise the same international data transfer and jurisdictional issues, making this directly relevant to Goodwin's practice.

Patent Due Dillifence

C: Conducted patent due diligence for a fusion energy client ahead of a transaction, reviewing nine patent families across UKIPO, USPTO, EPO, WIPO and CNIPA.

A: Independently verified every patent family rather than relying on client disclosures. Identified three issues: missing US applications (confirmed explained by non-publication rules), a chain-of-title discrepancy on the Chinese register, and an unpublished PCT application. Escalated the genuine ownership issue while distinguishing timing issues from real risks.

R: Produced a more accurate DD report that differentiated genuine red flags from matters requiring monitoring.

L: Learnt that good due diligence isn't about finding the most issues—it's about verifying assumptions before drawing conclusions and exercising judgement.

L (Role): The same disciplined approach underpins IP and commercial due diligence in technology transactions where ownership and licensing risks can materially affect deals.

EIC STEP

C: One example of working under pressure involved researching eligibility questions for a client applying to the EIC STEP Scale-Up programme. The partner needed advice overnight on whether a UK entity could receive investment and whether holding intellectual property in the UK rather than a Dutch affiliate created any issues.

A: Rather than relying solely on website guidance, I worked systematically through the primary materials, including the Work Programme Decision, Investment Guidelines and Horizon Europe Regulation. That enabled me to identify the legislative basis for the UK eligibility restrictions rather than simply repeating summary guidance.

The more difficult issue concerned the location of the client's IP. There wasn't a definitive prohibition, but the Investment Guidelines created a potential risk where strategic European interests were engaged. Rather than presenting a false yes-or-no answer, I framed the issue as a commercial risk that should be discussed directly with the EIC before the client's structure was finalised.

R:The partner was able to give the client a much more nuanced view of the issue rather than an oversimplified conclusion.

L: That experience taught me that clients often value judgement more than certainty. Sometimes the best legal advice is identifying where uncertainty exists and recommending practical next steps to manage it.

Lambert Comparison

C: One matter I particularly enjoyed involved comparing a bespoke research collaboration agreement against the Lambert model agreements to identify the closest equivalent and analyse the commercial implications of the differences.

A: Initially I identified Lambert D as the closest comparator, but when the partner asked me to focus specifically on the IP exploitation provisions, I revisited my analysis in more detail. That involved looking closely at exclusivity, field-of-use restrictions, commercialisation rights and compensation mechanisms rather than simply comparing the overall agreements.

During that review I realised I had initially overstated the effect of one licensing clause. On a closer reading, the provision didn't positively grant commercialisation rights; rather, it simply didn't restrict them beyond the agreed field of use. I corrected that before the advice went out and also identified an 'if any' qualifier that materially affected the scope of the compensation obligation.

R: That meant the advice ultimately reflected the precise commercial effect of the drafting rather than a broader summary.

L: The experience reinforced how small drafting nuances can fundamentally alter the commercial position. In technology and IP transactions, those provisions often govern how valuable assets are exploited for years after completion, so precision isn't just a legal exercise—it's directly tied to the client's commercial objectives.

OpenXchange

C: Early in my training, I was tasked with drafting part of a client memo on the regulatory process for a bulk direct debit transfer. This involved analysing the FCA permissions of two entities and explaining the practical steps required. It was my first substantive drafting to be included in senior associate advice, so it needed to be client-ready.

A: I began with FCA Register searches, but went beyond extracting permissions by analysing how they operated in the context of a bulk transfer. This allowed me to determine which entity could lawfully perform each step.

Given limited secondary commentary, I worked from primary FCA materials and reviewed internal precedents to understand both the legal framework and how similar transfers were handled in practice. This helped me translate regulatory rules into operational steps aligned with FCA expectations.

When drafting, I focused on audience calibration. I structured the section around what the client needed to do, rather than a purely technical explanation, and matched the tone of the wider memo—concise, practical, and commercially focused.

R: My section was incorporated into the final memo without material amendment. Feedback highlighted that it was clear, concise, and client-friendly, and capable of being relied on in client advice.

L: I learned the importance of combining technical research with practical application, and of using internal know-how strategically. It reinforced that effective drafting depends on tailoring advice to the client—prioritising clarity, relevance, and actionable guidance.

Link: Demonstrates my ability to translate complex regulatory frameworks into practical, client-ready advice—key in Commercial Tech and IP where clients need clear guidance on how regulation applies in practice.

OpenXchange Competencies

- Deliver exceptional legal advice - translated regulation into operational steps and produced client‑ready drafting.

Secondary competencies:

- Understand the business — focusing on what the client needed to do.

- Communicate clearly — audience calibration.

Crypto Promotion Memo

C: I worked on a matter for a prospective crypto client involving the UK financial promotions regime.

Initially - asked to prepare concise summaries of the consequences of non-compliance for a partner's live client meeting.

Then - I was tasked with drafting a standalone memo analysing:

1. Regime application to client's product

2. How it would likely be characterised,

3. Practical guardrails could reduce regulatory risk

First piece of substantive advisory work used directly by partners.

A: Meeting summaries, I focused on concise, commercially usable answers, anticipating key questions and preparing clear, practical responses.

Memo - I moved from describing the regime to applying it to the client's product and business model. I analysed how the product functioned in practice, how the financial promotions restrictions would apply, and whether any exclusions or structuring options could mitigate risk. The most challenging aspect was the guardrails analysis, as exemptions are highly fact-sensitive. I considered not just the legal wording, but how the client's communications, user journey, and product positioning would be viewed in practice.

I structured the memo as advice rather than research—briefly explaining the regime, identifying the likely position, and setting out practical options.

R: The memo was used directly by partners in ongoing client discussions and helped shape the regulatory approach to the product and its communications strategy. It also marked a transition to producing standalone advisory work.

L: I learned that effective regulatory advice lies in applying rules to how products operate in practice, and that concise, commercially focused communication is often more valuable than detailed technical explanation.

L: Demonstrates my ability to apply evolving regulatory frameworks to technology produc

Crypto promotions competencies

Be proactive - anticipate questioned

Entrepreurial mindset - guardrails analysis

Consumer Crefit FAQ

Context: Asked to create a Q&A resource on consumer credit issues in employee loan arrangements for corporate lawyers with no FSR background. Needed to be technically accurate, accessible, and modular enough for future client use.

Task: Produce practical, reusable guidance translating complex consumer credit regulation into accessible operational advice for non-specialists.

Action:

1. Reviewed and annotated Practical Law materials but structured resource around real questions corporate lawyers would ask rather than source material

2. Focused on identifying practical "traps", surprising issues, and common points of confusion

3. Drafted modular self-contained Q&A sections so answers could be lifted directly into client advice

Proactively created a flowchart mapping how consumer credit regime applies to employee loans, recognising visual explanations would aid usability

4. Following feedback, revised drafting substantially to improve accessibility: removed jargon, defined technical concepts, and rewrote explanations for non-specialist audience

Result: Final document became a reusable precedent rather than a one-off research note. Improved accessibility of consumer credit guidance for corporate teams and supported future client work.

Learning:

Strong drafting requires usability, not just technical accuracy

Complex regulation must be calibrated to audience knowledge level

Visual communication tools can improve understanding significantly

Link: Demonstrated ability to translate technical regulatory concepts into clear, operationally useful guidance — directly relevant to Commercial Tech/IP work involving cross-functional teams and evolving regulation

CC FAQ Competencies

Communicate clearly and accessibly

Innovation mindset — flowcharts + modular drafting.

Crypto Presentation

C — I was asked to deliver an internal training session on crypto regulation to colleagues across different levels of seniority. Crypto was fast‑moving and high‑profile at the time, and the challenge was pitching it so both specialists and non‑specialists could follow and get value.

A — Action (Technical Preparation) I prepared in three layers. First, I built a solid technical foundation on how cryptoassets and blockchain work so I could answer follow‑up questions confidently. Second, I mapped the UK regulatory framework — financial promotions, registration requirements and the FCA's enforcement approach — drawing on what I'd learnt from the Legion matter. Third, I compared the UK's position with the EU, US and other jurisdictions to give colleagues a global view.

A — Action (Session Design & Delivery) I worked out what assumptions I could safely make about audience knowledge, scripted the key sections and built flexibility into the delivery to allow for questions. I also incorporated insights from the UK Finance Digital Asset event I'd attended earlier in the seat to add practical context beyond desk research.

R — Result The session landed well and helped build internal capability in a rapidly evolving regulatory area. I received constructive feedback on using more vocal variation, which I took on board.

L — Learning I learnt that confident delivery comes from depth of preparation — the moments where I felt less fluent were the moments where I knew the material less well. I also learnt the value of practising delivery so the presentation feels natural rather than read.

L — This reinforced a core NQ skill for IPRD: taking complex, fast‑moving regulatory concepts and making them accessible. Clear, confident communication is essential when technology moves faster than regulation.

Crypto presentation competencies

- Become a subject matter expert — deep prep.

Communicate clearly — pitching to mixed audiences.

AWS Kering Matter

C: At AWS, I handled an NDA for a global luxury fashion group who insisted on using their own template rather than AWS's standard form. Because it was a customer-form NDA, I first obtained the required internal L8 approval before starting work. - recognised this changed negotiation dynamic (instead of defending AWS's language from a position of strength, I was adapting their document to reflect AWS's positions.)

A:Rather than deleting the customer's drafting and replacing it with AWS precedent, I strategically adapted their language wherever possible to reflect AWS's substantive positions. My aim was to reduce negotiation friction and increase the likelihood of acceptance.

After review, the customer pushed back — but only on cosmetic drafting changes such as wording and structure, not on substantive legal protections.

I had to decide whether to defend every amendment or focus on the points that actually mattered for AWS. Because the substantive protections remained intact, I reverted the cosmetic changes and moved the negotiation forward. (or I could concede the points that didn't matter and preserve goodwill for the ones that did.)

R: The NDA progressed without delay, AWS's legal position was preserved, and the matter avoided unnecessary escalation.

L: The key lesson was that not every point is worth defending. I learnt to assess amendments by asking: "If we lose this point, what materially changes?" If the answer is "nothing," the commercial cost of resisting often outweighs the legal value. It reinforced the importance of balancing technical accuracy with commercial effectiveness.

L:

AWS Kering competency

• Commercial awareness - balancing lelgal protections with neogotiation dynamics

• Jugment

• Client relationships - preserving goodwill

• Deliver exception legal advice

AWS Deloitte

Situation: Late Friday at AWS, stakeholder marked NDA request "high severity" with CEO visibility. AWS and Partner preparing joint proposal for major customer. Stakeholder wanted same-day turnaround and requested "exclusivity" preventing AWS from competing during proposal period.

Action: Did not accept request at face value. Checked systems and identified existing NDA already in place. Arranged stakeholder call to clarify commercial objective and confirmed issue was exclusivity rather than confidentiality. Worked with supervisor to explore side-letter solution using precedent exclusivity wording, but escalated to specialist NDA team before any external communication. Specialist confirmed counterparty was AWS Partner and exclusivity arrangements were prohibited under AWS Partner Network rules. Reset approach immediately. Drafted narrow engagement-specific NDA instead and prepared clear explanation to stakeholder setting out why exclusivity could not be agreed, applicable policy framework, and correct internal process. Ensured rationale documented formally within ticketing system.

Result: Matter resolved same evening without escalation. AWS avoided prohibited arrangement while still providing commercially workable solution. Stakeholder accepted position and no further escalation followed.

Learning / NQ Link: Learnt importance of identifying true commercial objective, escalating early, validating assumptions before communicating positions, and exercising calm judgment under pressure. Reinforced that effective commercial lawyers balance urgency, stakeholder expectations and risk management simultaneously.

AWS Deloitte Competencies

• Protect the firm - prevented a prohibited arrangement and managed risk under pressure.

• Be proactive — verifying assumptions.

• Matter management — coordinating stakeholders.

• Commercial awareness — identifying true objectives.

AWS 3-way NDA

C — Context Commercial stakeholder asked me to advise on an NDA dispute between AWS, a partner, and a gaming publisher customer. The customer wanted the partner to sign their unilateral NDA on terms the partner could not accept. Stakeholder proposed a three-party NDA. External legal consultancy costs created pressure to resolve quickly.

A — Action Reviewed existing contracts — found AWS already had a broad NDA with the customer; partner agreement was limited to AWS-specific discussions. Assessed AWS policy on three-party NDAs — generally avoided due to liability/enforcement ambiguity. Recommended a bilateral NDA directly between partner and customer, aligning the recommendation with policy rationale rather than just asserting it.

R — Result Parties adopted the bilateral NDA. Avoided unnecessary complexity and liability exposure, aligned with AWS NDA policy, and resolved the issue efficiently.

L — Learning Good in-house advice is often about what not to do. Always map the existing NDA landscape before any drafting — the pre-existing broad AWS/customer NDA was the key finding. Would identify alternatives more proactively upfront.

L — Link "The instinct to interrogate whether the proposed solution is actually the right one is especially valuable in IPRD, where stakeholders often arrive with an answer, not a question.

AWS 3-way NDA competencies

• Deliver exceptional legal advice - recommended the right structure, not the requested one.

• Judgment — interrogating the proposed solution.

• Commercial awareness — liability + enforcement implications.

• Client relationships — clear rationale.

AWS 24-hour ProServe

C: During my AWS secondment, I reviewed an accelerated SOW for a boutique digital strategy consultancy where AWS needed limited read-only production access. The issue created security, contractual and operational risk, and I had 24 hours to turn around the markup while coordinating EngSec, ICON and the project manager.

A: I checked the GRIPP ticket first to confirm the access was only needed for one workstream, then narrowed the scope language so the agreement did not over-grant access rights. I cross-referenced the customer responsibilities section, aligned the drafting with EngSec's security requirements, incorporated ICON feedback, and kept the supervising lawyer and trainee updated throughout.

R: The final markup was delivered on time, and the supervising lawyer said the production-access issues were easy to identify and negotiate.

L: I learned to verify the operational facts before drafting, because small wording differences can materially change the risk profile. I also became more conscious of the precedent created by contractual concessions in large technology deals.

L-B: This maps directly to IPRD because it combines commercial tech contracting, stakeholder coordination, and risk-based drafting under pressure.

AWS 24-hour proserve competencies

• Be proactive - coordinated EngSec, ICON, and delivered under extreme time pressure.

• Matter management — verifying facts before drafting.

• Commercial awareness — narrowing scope to reduce risk.

• Take ownership — driving the matter to completion.

Project Momometrics

Context: Worked in Tax & Incentives seat on M&A due diligence reviewing 100+ EMI option agreements in VDR. Output was going directly to partner for inclusion in transaction report. Worked with another trainee.

Task: Review large dataset, identify tax/compliance risks, and present material findings clearly for partner-level reporting in live transaction context.

Action:

Agreed structured methodology upfront (data points, materiality threshold, flagging system)

Worked systematically through assigned documents, maintaining live tracking log for accuracy and auditability

Identified key EMI issues, including options granted below AMV (loss of tax-advantaged status)

Assessed commercial impact: valuation implications, indemnity exposure, post-deal retention risk

Structured reporting to prioritise material issues rather than chronological data dump

Ensured output was partner-ready and decision-focused

Result: Key EMI compliance issues flagged early and incorporated into due diligence report before transaction progressed. Partner adopted structured format. AMV issue informed deal analysis and negotiation positioning.

Learning:

Methodology upfront is critical in high-volume review work

Live tracking improves accuracy and reduces oversight risk

Reporting requires judgment: prioritise material commercial risks over chronology

Link: Reinforced ability to identify and communicate material risk in complex datasets under time pressure — directly transferable to Tech/IP advisory and transactional work.

Projcect Momometrics Competencies

• Matter management (methodology, tracked progress, and delivered partner‑ready output)

• Teamwork — splitting work, taking over when colleague left.

• Judgment — prioritising material risks.

What are the teamwork apsects to Project Momometrics?

A: We agreed the methodology upfront, split the review logically, set reminders to check in, and used a shared document to track progress and flag issues consistently. I kept a live log as I reviewed my allocation, and when my colleague had to leave early for a pre-commitment, I took over finalising the document and preparing it for supervisor review.

HMRC Dispute Research

Context: Researched whether a client could challenge an HMRC PAYE assessment after payment, and what procedural routes remained available. Key risk: incorrect sequencing could permanently prevent recovery of overpayment.

Task: Identify statutory routes and procedural risks, ensuring client did not lose ability to recover funds due to incorrect legal steps.

Action:

Mapped statutory framework: s.55 TMA 1970 (postponement), overpayment relief, Schedule 1AB exclusions

Identified key risk: Case F exclusion (payments linked to winding-up petition may be irrecoverable)

Assessed legal position using HMRC manuals, case law, practitioner commentary

Structured findings into clear research table (sources + reasoning + conclusions)

Converted analysis into step-by-step client guidance with deadlines and procedural options

Result: Identified critical procedural trap (Case F) and clarified viable routes. Output informed partner-level advice and ensured client retained ability to act without jeopardising recovery rights.

Learning:

Most important skill is identifying the one provision that materially changes client outcome

Structuring research before populating improves clarity and reduces repetition

Procedural sequencing in tax disputes is as important as substantive law

Link: Reinforced ability to identify high-impact procedural risks and translate complex statutory frameworks into clear, actionable client advice — directly transferable to Tech/IP and regulatory advisory work.

HMRC Dispute research competency

• Deliver exceptional legal advice - identified the one procedural trap that changed the outcome.

• Subject matter expertise — statutory mapping.

• Judgment — sequencing risks.

• Communication — step‑by‑step client guidance.

Tealbook Sub-Plan

C: Drafted a UK EMI Sub-Plan and Option Agreement adapted from a Canadian plan, supporting a live corporate transaction with a 24-hour turnaround. The task required EMI tax compliance, UK-specific leaver provisions, bespoke vesting terms, and inclusion of Section 431 Elections and UK tax/NIC provisions.

A: Fully reviewed the parent plan in full to understand its commercial intent and structure before adapting it to a UK EMI framework. I reconstructed "Good/Bad Leaver" provisions by translating Canadian "for cause" concepts into enforceable UK equivalents, preserving intent rather than wording.

I ensured consistency of vesting terms and defined terms across the Sub-Plan and Option Agreement to avoid ambiguity in exercise rights. During this process, I identified a critical issue: the UK subsidiary intended to grant the options had been dissolved, meaning the EMI plan could not legally operate. I escalated this immediately in my draft cover note to clent rather than treating it as outside scope.

Prepared supporting materials, including comparison notes and a client-facing summary of HMRC valuation requirements, deadlines, and ongoing compliance.

R: I delivered a full draft within 24 hours with minimal amendments. Identifying the dissolved subsidiary early prevented a fundamental structural failure and allowed the transaction to proceed without delay.

L: I learned that precision in defined terms is critical in incentive structures, and that adapting cross-border documents requires a clear understanding of commercial intent. It reinforced the importance of proactively identifying and escalating structural risks.

Link: Demonstrates my ability to deliver complex cross-border drafting under pressure while exercising strong judgment, technical precision, and commercial awareness.

Tealbook Competency

• Take ownership

  You delivered a full cross‑border plan in 24 hours and escalated a structural issue.

Geopura Option Deeds

Context: Asked to draft option deeds for non-executive directors and non-employees. Neither qualified for EMI tax treatment, so standard EMI precedent could not be used. Also required tracked-change comparison against client's existing agreement.

Task: Produce legally effective non-tax-favoured option deeds tailored to different categories of optionholders, with accurate comparison documents and execution-ready outputs.

Action:

Confirmed upfront that EMI treatment was unavailable for NEDs/non-employees (wrong framework risk)

Identified issue was structural, not just drafting adaptation

Drafted two tailored non-tax-favoured option deeds reflecting different legal/tax positions

Managed version control manually, reviewing tracked changes section-by-section rather than bulk acceptance to ensure consistency and avoid drafting errors

Prepared tracked-change comparison against existing client agreement for transparency + QC verification

Drafted client-facing correspondence and execution-ready documents

Result: Delivered accurate execution-ready documents with clear comparison materials. Correct legal structure implemented from outset, avoiding reliance on inappropriate EMI framework.

Learning:

Selecting the correct legal structure is more important than simply adapting precedent

Strong version-control discipline is essential in multi-iteration drafting

Tracked comparisons are valuable both for client communication and internal QC

Link: Demonstrated ability to challenge assumptions, select appropriate legal frameworks, and deliver precise execution-ready drafting — directly transferable to Commercial Tech/IP transactional work.

Geopura competencies

- Deliver exceptional legal advice

You selected the correct legal structure and produced execution‑ready documents.

Secondary competencies:

- Judgment — rejecting EMI framework.

- Technical expertise — drafting bespoke deeds.

Shield Therapeutics

C: Dual-source API supply strategy for a pharmaceutical client manufacturing a women's health product. Client wanted to onboard a second API supplier alongside its incumbent supplier. I was asked to compare both supply agreements and strengthen the client's late-delivery protections under the existing agreement.

A:

- Structured the comparison issue-by-issue rather than clause-by-clause because the agreements were drafted differently.

- Focused analysis on the key commercial risk areas: exclusivity, pricing, forecast commitments, liability allocation, and supply-disruption risk.

- Identified that the late-delivery clause could not be reviewed in isolation because consequential loss and liability cap provisions elsewhere in the agreement would undermine any enhanced remedy.

- Flagged this structural interaction and drafted coordinated amendments across all three provisions.

- Proactively identified additional risks the client had not raised, including conflicting exclusivity obligations between suppliers and an aggressive take-or-pay forecasting mechanism in the new supplier agreement.

- Drafted two negotiation strategies for the partner: a strong opening position and a more commercially targeted fallback.

R: The supervising associate said the work was particularly useful because it was clearly structured and made the negotiation issues immediately identifiable. It helped prepare the team for supplier negotiations and ensured the client understood the wider commercial implications of moving to a dual-source supply model.

L: Learned the importance of analysing agreements holistically rather than reviewing clauses in isolation. Also developed stronger commercial drafting skills by pairing technical risk analysis with practical negotiation strategy — directly transferable to transactional and IPRD work.

Shield competencies

Commercial awareness

You analysed agreements holistically and drafted negotiation strategies.

Secondary competencies:

- Deliver exceptional legal advice — structural risk analysis.

- Take ownership — preparing strategies for partner.

Researching Canadian

C: T&I, supported cross-border restructuring project involving a Canadian tech company that was onsidering a corporate continuance into another jurisdiction while maintaining its legal identity.

A:

R:

L: