- Sep 9, 2024
- 634
- 1,126
That's a very good question. In my experience, US firms tend to provide a number of introductory sessions at the beginning of the TC and/or at the beginning of each seat to get you to understand the basic as to what the role of a trainee is and how to go about completing your work. Afterwards, a lot of the training and support is indeed provided on an on the job setting. The US firms that tend to do the best in this regard do the following:Question for those who prefer US firms to UK/international firms:
One stereotype I have heard of US firms is that their leaner teams/more recent establishment in London means that training is not as structured as at MC/other firms.
Having done a little research, I understand that this is an oversimplification, if not a misconception. I understand that US firms might approach training differently in the sense of having a more hands-on approach, perhaps as a result of leaner teams. Having a hands-on approach is not necessarily a bad thing - in fact, it can be very good! Being put in the deep end can sometimes force you to swim.
On the flip side, I do appreciate that having close support from the early stages is very helpful. To continue the metaphor, there is still a chance you'll need some armbands.
My question is as follows: in general (or even in reference to specific firms), how do the US firms provide learning support to trainees? How does the support compare to other firms? I'm guessing that leaner teams means you have greater opportunity to built personal rapport with senior lawyers, but that still depends on the luck of the draw (e.g., senior lawyers having the time/desire to support you).
For @Amma Usman @Ram Sabaratnam @Andrei Radu and anyone else with insight
Thank you![]()
- Encourage practitioners to provide detailed instructions to trainees prior to allocating a tasks (including filling them in as to how their work fits into the broader picture) and detailed feedback post completion.
- Encourage supervisors to manage the trainee's workload so that they get broad exposure to the range of tasks, workstreams, and matters that will best form their knowledge and skillset.
- Have an open door policy and a culture in which trainees feel comfortable reaching out to team members and asking them questions.
But turning back to the US vs UK training model debate, the fundamental reason why I preferred the former was that I thought I would likely learn and improve my skills more when I had the pressure of actual work to deliver rather than when just attending sessions and presentations. Having conversed on this topic with many MC/SC trainees as well as US firm trainees, they both seemed to agree that you learn most when you actually do something, as opposed to just thinking about how you will go about doing it. The downside of the US model is that you will likely have to deal with a lot more stressful situations when you have to figure out things on your own early on - which is why many US trained associates told me the most difficult year of their career was the year when they started their TC. The upside is that you are significantly better prepared for when you start as an NQ. Here, a number of US-trained associates described the experience as "a rather seamless transition", saying that the last week of the TC was more or less the same as the first week as an NQ. UK-trained solicitors however tended to describe the first year post qualification as the most difficult one, as it involved a significantly greater jump in stress and responsibility.