Page 1 of 12

Law Interview Questions

Can you imagine a world without laws?

What are the for and against arguments for bicycle helmets?
What does it mean for someone to ‘take’ another’s car?
If a wife had expressed distaste for it previously, would her husband’s habit of
putting marmalade in his egg at breakfast be grounds for divorce?
If my friend locks me in a room, and says I am free to come out whenever I like as
long as I pay £5, is this a deprivation of liberty?
Describe ‘respect for the freedom of conscience.’
Can a computer have a conscience?
Should judges have a legislative role?
What do you think the uses of traffic lights are?
Smith sees Jones walking towards the edge of a cliff. Smith knows Jones is blind,
but doesn’t like him, so allows him to walk off the edge. Is this murder?
If A gave B £100 thinking it was a loan and B accepted the money thinking it was a
gift, should he give it back?
Do you think that anyone should be able to serve on a jury?
What is reasonable belief?
Where do you see International Law in fifty years’ time?
Is wearing school uniform a breach of human rights?
Is someone guilty of an offence if they did not set out to commit a crime but
ended up in doing so?
Would you trade your scarf for my bike, even if you have no idea what state it’s in
or if I even have one?
If you could go back in time to any period of time when it would be and why?
What effect on the whole of society does someone crashing into a lamppost
have?
Should anyone be able to serve on a jury?
Compare these bottles of Tesco and Timotei shampoo.
Where does the state have the right to violate privacy?
What effect on the whole of society does someone crashing into a lamppost
have? Does a girl scout have a political agenda?
 Page 2 of 12

Should the use of mobile phones be banned on public transport?

Where does honesty fit into Law?
Define ‘at fault’.
How do you think the House of Lords should be reformed?
What have you read in the papers recently that relates to international law?
What is the difference between intention and foresight?
What is best: a written or non-written constitution?
Explain Naomi Campbell’s life.
Should people have the right to die?
Should the law exist to protect us from ourselves?
Should the law restrict our freedom of speech?
Should the media be more regulated by the state?
Should those who make the laws (i.e. politicians) and those who enforce the laws
(i.e. judges) be kept separate?
A doctor is asked by a patient’s family member to kill the patient as they are in a
lot of pain. Would this be murder?
A man is sentenced to seven years in prison after falsely being convicted of
murder. It later transpires that the victim is still alive. Can the convict be
sentenced again if he kills the `victim’ after he is released from prison?
A Company puts an advert in a local newspaper: “Buy our brilliant guide to getting
into university and we guarantee you will be offered a place at your first choice or
your money back and £1000”. James buys the guide, follows its advice but is
rejected from everywhere he applies. The Company refuses to give him his money
back. Can he sue for breach of contract?
A cyclist is injured following a road traffic accident in the day. He was cycling in a
car lane rather than the cycle lane. Who is liable- the cyclist or the motorist? How
about if the accident occurred at night and the cyclist had no lights?
A father promises to give his daughter £100 a week during her time at university.
After the first term, he decides she needs to be more self-reliant and stops paying
her. Can she sue him for breach of contract?
A Field Marshall orders a soldier to kill his squad mate. Would this be murder?
A man holds a gun up to your head and says “shoot your father or I’ll kill you
both”. You then shoot. Are you guilty of murder? What about if he had said
 Page 3 of 12

“shoot your father or I’ll kill you”? Finally, what about it he had said “shoot your
father or I’ll kill him”.
A manufacturing defect stops a parachute from deploying in a charity skydive
leading to two people dying. Is this manslaughter or murder?
A parent slaps their child because they behaved badly. Is that abuse? What about
if they caused a bruise?
Are babies born with a moral code or is it learned?
Are school uniforms a contravention of human rights?
Define a miracle.
Describe ‘respect for the freedom of conscience.’
Do we have an obligation to obey the law?
Does a girl scout have a political agenda?
How do you know what you don’t know?
I’m having trouble with the meaning of three words: Lie, Deceive, Mislead. They
seem to mean something a bit similar, but not exactly the same. Help me to sort
them out from each other.
If a baby in shopping centre was strapped with a bomb, would you shoot the baby
to save 1 person? 100 people?
If your neighbor fixed your collapsing roof while you were away on holiday,
should you pay him for this?
If A gave B £100 thinking it was a loan and B accepted the money thinking it was a
gift, should he have to give it back?
If a law limits or restricts our freedom to do something, is that an unjust law with
regards to autonomy?
If the penalty for parking on a double yellow were death, and therefore nobody
did it, would that be a just and effective law?
If we lived in a world of angels would there be any need to have the law?
If you could change three laws which ones would they be?
If you have got a client who refuses to go to court despite being summoned for
multiple charges. What advice would you give him?
If you were the prime minister, which laws would you change?
In France, if a person sees somebody drowning, they have a legal obligation to
help them. Should this be the case in the UK?
 Page 4 of 12

Is someone guilty if they did not set out to commit a crime up they ended up
doing so?
Is it fair to impose a height restriction on those wanting to become fire fighters?
It’s raining and have forgotten your umbrella, so you shelter in an unlocked car.
Are you guilty of the offence of allowing yourself to be carried in a conveyance
without the owner’s consent?
Lots of legislation includes phrases like “beyond reasonable doubt”- what does
this actually mean?
Rowan offers to sell Graham his car for £500. They shake on it and Graham gives
him the money in cash. En route to delivering it, Rowan crashes and the car is
written-off. He refuses to give Graham his money back. What can Graham do
next?
Should airlines be allowed to charge people for using the toilet on a plane?
Should fat people have to pay extra on planes if they need to take two seats
Should judges have a legislative role?
Should the law be based on morality?
Should the law be black and white, or should it be flexible enough to look at each
case on an individual basis?
Should the state have the right to violate our privacy?
Should we make stalking illegal?
Smith sees Jones walking towards the edge of a cliff. Smith knows Jones is blind,
but doesn’t like him, so allows him to walk off the edge. Is this murder?
The Supreme Court has taken over the judicial functions of the House of Lords.
What impact do you think this will have?
To what extent did the NSA revelations impact on the British public?
To what extent should our data be available to the government? What about the
data of foreign citizens?
What are the fundamental differences between US and British Law? What are the
implications of this?
What are the pros & cons about juries?
What do you think the uses of traffic lights are?
What do you understand by the rule of law?
What does it mean to ‘take’ another’s car?
 Page 5 of 12

What have you read in the papers recently that relates to international law?
What is a country?
What is a Queen’s Counsel and how does one become one?
What is the point of having a judge when decisions are made by the jury?
What is the difference between a barrister and a solicitor?
What is the difference between intention and foresight?
What is the difference between manslaughter and murder? What is its
significance?
What is the difference between the House of Lord and House of Commons?
Which has more power?
What is the hierarchy of courts in the UK?
What is the point of a judge when laws are made by the jury?
What law is broken every day by most people?
What stops countries from invading each other on a daily basis?
What were the consequences of 9/11 on law?
What would it be like to live in a country with no laws?
What would the English courts make of Antonio and Shylock’s bargain from
Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice today? Would they enforce it?Why is the
rule of law important?
What’s the difference between a civil and criminal case?
When does the state have the right to violate privacy?
Where does honesty fit into law?
Which law is broken most frequently?
Which laws could we introduce to curb the obesity epidemic?
Who has the power to write and change laws?
Why are some professions exempt from Jury duty?
Why did you choose to study law?
Why do we bother with environmental protection?
Why is Roman law relevant to our modem study of law?
Why is there no United States of Europe but there is a United States of America?
Would it be a good idea for there to be a minimum IQ for jurors in a trial?
Would it be wrong for judges to be elected?
 Page 6 of 12

A. This post aims to share some general tips for the law interview as well as a
selection of past interview questions that students have been asked.

As usual if there are any queries, feel free to e-mail me at khleslie@hotmail.com

or WhatsApp me at +65 97325081 (I'm sometimes too busy to check the GuruMe
platform). I am one of the founders of this company GuruMe and have coached
many applicants who applied successfully into the University of Oxford and the
University of Cambridge

Q. General tips for the law interview

A. Received an invitation for a Law interview? Great! The next step is to do your
absolute best preparation to make sure you have the potential to shine. What is
recommended then? Firstly, read up very widely and really think hard about all
the difficult issues underpinning the different areas of law. You can't predict for
sure what kind of questions will come up (probably some kind of case study) but
some arguments are very useful because they are potentially applicable to many
areas so they are more useful than others. E.g. if you decide a certain case should
have this outcome, will it open the floodgates of litigation? Will it have any public
policy concerns, implications or repercussions?

Q. An example of a law case discussion

A. For instance, in one of the law interviews, the applicant was given a case where
a mum promised her daughter to support her financially if she would study law in
the UK for her (Jones v Padavatton, for those who are interested). The mum later
withdrew her support so the question was whether the daughter could sue and
whether there was a binding contract.

From a micro point of view and from a fairness standpoint, it seems as though the
daughter should have some sort of remedy (particularly if the facts are tweaked
such that it seems manifestly unfair to her). However if the daughter was allowed
 Page 7 of 12

to recover damages, it might mean that there will be a lot more litigation from
people who have family arrangements who come forth to try their luck. Is this
desirable, do we want people to have to tread carefully and watch their words in
case it has legal effect, even in a social or familial setting? So it's kind of balancing
fairness in an individual case with broader social repercussions, which should
prevail?

Q. What are the objectives of the law?

A. This ties in closely with what the law serves to do which is definitely important
to think about. If you have a very clear idea what the law should do, what
objectives it should serve etc and you can defend your point of view convincingly
while appreciating that other points of view might also have its merit, it would be
really useful. E.g. does the law seek to guide behaviour? To promote equality? To
prevent oppression? What if these values are in conflict? Etc.

This might also mean being familiar with some basic legal ideas so you can use it
as starting points even if you disagree with them. E.g. civil liability and criminal
are very different, one seeks to compensate only, the other seeks to punish an
outrage to public values. Thus different processes are applicable to them for
different reasons. So for example in a civil suit if you argue extensively that a
party should lose because he should be punished for his immoral conduct, that
might not sit well with the tutors unless you can show them that you have this
point of view despite appreciating that typically in a civil suit, the law seeks to
compensate rather than punish parties.

It is not even just about what the law seeks to achieve, it might also be
fundamentally what the law is. Is the law simply a reflection of social values?
Majority thinks something is wrong so the law says it is wrong? Or is the law a
means to shape social values? So we want people to think killing is wrong,
therefore we make it illegal. Does the law play a more passive or active role? Also,
is it productive or meaningful to think about what the law is rather than what it
 Page 8 of 12

should be? Or even in fact, has the law anything to do with social values, and does
the law go hand in hand with morality? E.g. illegal car parking probably doesn't
carry a moral stigma if for instance you had an emergency and had nowhere to
park. Nonetheless the law penalizes you and you have to pay a fine. On the other
hand, adultery might be frowned upon but the law doesn't penalize it. These are
the kind of questions that won't be asked on its own but would be applicable to
supporting your other arguments.

Q. Reflections from many different students on the interview questions

A. •All the questions in my interview were based around a case study (one on
freedom of expression and another on the tort of conversion). I think the most
important thing I took from it was that the interviewers seemed to be looking for
very technical specific discussion on the reasoning behind a law. It was like
zooming in on a particular aspect of it and then ignoring everything else.

• The interviews were really only a discussion of the case studies I had been
asked to prepare twenty minutes before each interview. There were scenarios at
the bottom of each and the interviewers would ask my opinion on each. From
there would stem a debate on my answers and their opinions.

• Almost all of the interviews were about the unseen material I had been given.
I was asked at the start of the interview about why I wanted to study Law, but
that was the only general question. Everything else was specific to the material.

• The only questions in the interview revolved around my reasoning for
studying the subject. Apart from that, every question was about the law statute
that I was given.

• I was given a legal definition and asked to apply it to different situations. I was
also asked about my preparatory study piece, as well as how my subjects related
 Page 9 of 12

to my course. We discussed the Stephen Lawrence case and law in other

jurisdictions, in relation to topics like women's rights and the death penalty.

• The interview began with my interviewers asking me why I wanted to study
Law. They then asked lots of questions relating to what I had written on my
Personal Statement, such as my Amnesty International group at school and the
work experience I had undertaken. I said I was interested in human rights on my
Personal Statement and I was questioned on this, leading to a discussion about
why human rights have developed, strangely involving Guy Fawkes. This example
led onto an in-depth discussion.

• I was given various case studies: There is a man whose leg is injured. He visits
the hospital, but the doctor does not treat him for five days. The man ends up
disabled. Is the doctor liable? What if the man had a twenty-five per cent
probability that he would not be disabled, and a seventy-five per cent probability
that he would still be disabled even if treated straightaway. Is the doctor liable?
Do you think he should be liable? The punishment for driving without a licence is
up to one year's imprisonment. There are two men whose car runs out of fuel and
they push the car to get it to the petrol station. In order to get it there they ask a
girl walking by to steer it while they push. She does not have a driving licence. As
a judge, would you punish her/to what extent? There is a man in the desert who
has many enemies. One enemy poisons his bottle; another man puts a hole in the
bottle. The man dies of dehydration. Who's to blame? Imagine the situation
changed: the second man puts a hole in the bottle, and the traveller's helper sees
that there is a hole in the bottle but says nothing. Is he to blame? There is a
volcanic eruption which creates a new island. People emigrate to this island, and
now there are 100 people. Can this be recognised as a state?

• I was asked about Ebola. The line of questioning went something like this. Do
you think Britain should intervene in the Ebola Crisis? (To which I replied Yes, for a
few reasons.) Would you still intervene if the government didn't want the help? (I
talked about weighing up the interests of the government and people and making
 Page 10 of 12

a value judgment without provoking military action.) So is every malnourished kid

in Bangladesh our problem? (I responded that Ebola and malnutrition are
different.) In the light of what you have said, lets say China has decided to
infiltrate the NHS, despite the British government not wanting help, due to the
fact that it's in the best interests of the people to take a stance against obesity
which is a health crisis ravaging the Western world. On this basis, would you still
argue that we need to intervene in Ebola?

• In the first interview I was asked for an example of possible violation of a
statute from my own reading, and we had a detailed discussion of whether it
constituted a violation based on the precise wording of the law. The second
interview began with my personal interests in school, academic and
extracurricular activities. This evolved into a rather argumentative exchange on
my views on the criminalisation of homosexuality and the separation of powers
doctrine as a reason for its flawed implementation (versus Barack Obama and
DOMA, and the strong separation of powers in the US). There was a specific
question on whether I thought the death penalty should be reintroduced in
Britain given that 60% of people oppose its abolition in opinion polls –
something I mentioned in passing in my Personal Statement.

• I was given a sheet to read 35 minutes beforehand on Misrepresentation. We

discussed a case study. Anna bought a car from Jim expecting it to be X years old,
with Y miles driven. Anna decides to buy car because Jim says parts are easy to
buy from a "well-established" company with a "great track record". Jim's
company is losing money and he really needs to sell this car. Anna finds out that
the milometer has been changed and it was older than she thought. Anna takes it
to an expert who values it at £25,000. She bought it for £45,000 and expected it
to have been worth £50,000. Also, the company that provides parts has gone out
of business.

Q. Some additional tips on the law interview

 Page 11 of 12

A. I'd also say when you take a stand, don't take an absolute position, be ready to
concede it. Try your best to defend your position but if you think what the
interviewer said makes sense as well, it's okay to say, well in light of that I agree
that this other position is also good in the sense that bla bla, the tutors like open-
mindedness.

Also try to read a lot about law-related stuff, news articles, trends and big news in
the legal world etc. You can drop 1-2 lines in pasing to demonstrate your
knowledge and interest particularly if it is relevant to your argument. But of
course anything you mention you must be prepared for further questions so know
it well.

Prepare really hard and read as much as you can on all the past law interview
questions. The oxford website has a couple:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/interviews/
sample-interview-questions

GuruMe has some too, http://www.gurume.co.uk/en/oxbridge_questions. The

answers ere prepared by a successful law applicant but take the answers with a
grain of salt because there is no right or wrong answer, it is all about how you
answer that matters.

All the best!

Q. Feel free to reach out! (Edit and update year 2020-2021)

A. Update year 2020-2021: My name is Leslie and I'm the author of this article
above, written many years ago, as well as one of the founders of this company
GuruMe. I am still coaching students for LNAT and interviews as of year 2020 and
year 2021 (alongside being a qualified lawyer). If interested in coaching, please
feel free to reach me at khleslie@hotmail.com or WhatsApp me at +65 97325081.
The advice and resources provided will be tailored and personalised to each
 Page 12 of 12

applicant. I have helped many applicants apply successfully into the University of
Oxford and Cambridge. Thanks
Law (Jurisprudence)
Law – Oxford Interview Questions

“How can I prepare when the interviewer could ask me

absolutely anything about Law?”

By understanding how the interview works and, crucially, what it is that the
interviewer is looking for. The interviewer is not looking to catch you out, but
rather for you to demonstrate your curiosity, knowledge and passion for Law.

“How am I able to do that?”

Demonstrate your enthusiasm and personality

You might be asked general interview questions so that the interviewer can learn
more about you – review our list of General Interview questions to prepare.

Show that you enjoy studying Law independently

The easiest way to demonstrate your enthusiasm for Law is to show that you are
self-motivated and have studied the subject in your free-time for enjoyment – for
example through online lectures and independent reading. If you don’t know
where to start, review our suggested reading list below.

Demonstrate your subject knowledge about and passion for Law

The key to answering these questions is to always demonstrate your thought
process aloud. The interviewer does not expect you to be able to answer every
question immediately, but rather wants to determine that you are able to think
about and work on unknown topics with confidence, intelligence and clarity – and
they won’t be able to do that if you sit in silence! Use the list of questions below
to prepare. Perhaps you can have a friend or relative ask you these questions so
that you can develop your skills of thinking under time pressure and speaking out
loud.