-

[Deleted member 16399]

-

 

[M&A]

Hi,

I'm far more inexperienced than you, as I'm just a "future trainee". However, I'm a career changer (mid thirties) and my comment is concerning the worklife balance and life style choices in general

In my view the attrition rate in US firms is so large as to make the move completely unappealing. From what I have seen on LinkedIn and talking to people, junior lawyers just leave US law firms pronto. My honest belief is that there is a serious case of burn out and it is an absolute shame that so much talent gets diverted away from the profession.

I read Legal Cheek comments, admittedly many may just be bored students without a VAC but there seems to be this frenzy about landing the highest paying position at the junior end. But where are those people 7 years down the line?

Mind, money is important, and the current packages in those firms appear better. (I note that you don't mention this as a consideration by the way). But my experience of US model in a different industry is that the pension contributions are dismal, so you end up having to put a lot away. Also so much gets wiped with tax.. that I don't think it is sincerely worth it to be totally burned out in 5-7 years time.

Are you happy at your current firm? Do you get on with your colleagues? If yes, I think this is also a massive selling point for staying. I think working in an environment where you feel valued and supported is hugely important. Could also happen at US firm of course. But do you personally know the particular team you would be working with?

Another consideration though is practice area. Is any of the other firms you are considering better in your chosen field? Are any practitioners there that you admire more or think that you could learn more from than at your current outfit?

All in all, unless you don't like your colleagues, or your practice area in your firm is not strong, I personally would stay for at least a year or two and carry on developing there. You will still be at your prime in terms of marketability and you can reasses your options.

The extra 200h on paper *and I strongly suspect it is more than that* may take a very heavy toll on your well-being and outlook on the profession. I don't think it is worth it.

I know that I'm a career changer, so I'm definitely not against changing track. But I followed my passion in my youth so I have an inherent feeling of having done what I wanted to do when I could do it. I don't think that working every hour under the sun and some more is necessarily conducive to a happy and sustainable life in your 20s.

Sorry that I wasn't able to properly answer any of your questions!! And instead asked some more In any event, you are in a fantastic position being able to choose, so congratulations and good luck!

 

[Paul - Shearman & Sterling]

Hello. I appreciate this forum is largely used by students and future trainee solicitors, but I thought I'd give it a try.

I'm a fourth seat trainee at a Magic Circle law firm and I have multiple offers from "Elite US" law firms (think K&E, L&W, STB). I also have return offers.

I'm quite concerned about various things. Although I've gained a lot more clarity about what NQ/Associate life would look like at my current MC firm, and through talking with various people at said US firms, a potential view on what my life could look like there, I'd still like any information from people that have made the move.

My concerns are as follows:

Hours / Lifestyle. I think it's clear from my time at my MC firm and by working/looking at the junior associates, I will work less if I stay. I personally think it's quite a good lifestyle balance at the current work expectation, as I pretty much will have my Friday evening and weekends. However, a lot of the US firms have told me that their hours average around 1900 to 2000ish. In my mind, that's probably only a 100 to 200 increase (a year) from what's currently expected at my current firm. I think that's potentially manageable assuming it doesn't eat into Friday Evenings / Saturday Evenings. It'd be great to hear about people's experiences on this - especially because I have had mixed responses. There certainly seems to be an element of people voluntarily giving up Friday Evenings / Weekends because they prefer a slightly lighter week (or vice versa). I also can't quite tell whether some people are genuinely busy because they're in a US firm or if they have incredibly bad time management, because someone working late at night doesn't necessarily mean that they are working throughout the entire day.

Training. One of the main selling points that my current firm and the US firms boast about is their quality of training. In my mind, both types of firms would logically provide the same 'baseline' training because they are either all MC lawyers or ex-MC lawyers anyway. On one hand, I could see that training at my current firm could be better because it has a longer history of training associates to become leading partners, etc. However, having experienced what work is like, I often learn from the junior/senior associates who are often too busy or not always interested in answering series of questions (which is perfectly acceptable, given that it is quite a burden on their free time). On the other hand, if you're typically working longer hours in US firms, you could argue that you're doing 'more' and learning more. Although, equally, you could be too busy to actually learn and often find yourself doing process. I guess the whole point of this concern is about how one could tell whether training would be better at firm A or B.

Progression. Pretty much all US law firms have partners that are Ex-MC. I'm worried that they do not have a model in place that actually develops you (if you're starting at the very bottom) to become a partner. I appreciate that this is a concern for much further down the road, but it'd be interesting to hear more senior people's views on this. I acknowledge that presence of US firms and their development of their training contract programmes is a fairly recent thing, and therefore this is to be expected.

Reversibility. I've heard rumours that once you go to a US firm, you'll never be allowed back to the MC firm you trained at. This corroborates what I've seen on LinkedIn. I'm sure there are many reasons to explain why this may happen and that it isn't due to a internal policy or political consideration (optics) (e.g. people who leave their US firm tend to leave law altogether). Does anyone know anything about this? I'm hesitant to ask the partners at my firm because it shows mixed motivation. I ask this because if the hours/lifestyle is too much to handle (or my objectives change), I'd like the option to go back to a known quantity.

Happy to disclose more information via PMs if you're experienced on this topic.

Hi @LateralLawyer

I think this is a great question. I also do lateral recruitment (as well as grad rec) so know a bit about this. Here are my thoughts:

Each of the US firms you've listed will be different. Not all US firms are the same, in the same way that not all UK firms are the same.

Hours / Lifestyle - I think 1900-2000 hours is about right. In terms of working evenings/weekends, you'll probably find that most firms will respect this time when they can. If you are in a transactional practice group, you'll know that this isn't always possible though.

Training - as an NQ most of your structured training has been done. You tend to learn by doing. US firms do have smaller deal teams which will probably mean you get more exposure to partners, SAs, the clients etc. That usually helps your development.

Progression - you're right - most partners at US firms trained at UK firms and have either been hired laterally as a partner or as an associate and progressed through to the partnership. Lots of this is to do with the fact that US firms only started to run training contracts programmes in the past 10-15 years as they built out their English law practices - but we are now seeing more partners at US firms who trained at that firm. US firms have also grown quickly in London and to grow quickly you need to hire laterally. I wouldn't take this to mean US firms won't offer you the same progression opportunities. US firms are also still growing quickly, and there can be more opportunities with firms that are growing.

Reversibility - I've never heard anyone say that you can't join a MC firm from a US firm! You might find that lots of people just don't want to

I hope that helps.

Thanks,

Paul

 

[Jessica Booker]

On the reversibility point, I think it is much more to do with that few people look back even when they have enjoyed working for a previous employer. Whatever the role, or the move between organisations, people don't tend to go back to previous employers in huge numbers. I don't think it has anything to do with the employers' attitudes, I think it is much more to do with the mindset of the individual employee. They left for a reason, and in more cases than not that reason will still be there. Sometimes the grass isn't greener, but it usually just makes people look forward to the next opportunity rather than look back at the one they gave up.

 

[TC fiend]

Speaking from the conversations I’ve heard 5-6 PQE associates have, the resounding agreement is that if you’re very ambitious, ticking off a US firm on your CV will benefit you in the long run. It is VERY common to hear that associates do 2-3 years at a US firm while earlier in their career and then transition to a MC or SC firm when they want to slow down or work at a firm with a different structure (in particular, a bigger team - as many US firms have small teams you are likely to be saddled with far more responsibility of a more general nature earlier on, whereas MC/SC firms will have more space for you to work as part of a very specialized bigger team). Anecdotally, all the associates I know seem to share the sentiment that once you’ve got US firm experience, it opens many more doors to you to go anywhere else after that, whereas moving “up” from a MC/SC firm to a US firm is seen as a more difficult step. Ultimately it is up to you and what you’d like out of your career. Working at a MC firm, you’ll still work plenty of weekends depending on your practice group. Probably less than at a US firm but all in all, I don’t think you’ll be shocked at what a huge difference the workload is. I think the more important consideration is what sort of environment you want to work in. If you love being part of a bigger team and finding your niche within that, a MC firm might be a better place for you for the time being. Regarding pay, as an NQ it certainly is a reasonably large difference, but as an experienced associate after taxes it really isn’t all its cracked up to be.

Just my two cents!

 

[Jessica Booker]

My other point is that a decision doesn't have to be made now.

You may now have offers as a NQ, but there will be future opportunities as a PQE lawyer. Clearly if you are in demand now, there is a very decent chance you will be equally in demand in the future as well.

My question would be whether you were actively looking for other NQ roles with other firms, or whether you were tapped up by recruitment consultants? If the latter, (and based on what you have posted), it suggests you are happy where you are and you have just had your head turned. If that is the case, I think there is probably more reason to stay than to leave.

However, if you have been actively looking for a different firm, this suggests to me you are more unsettled in your current firm and that suggests that although there would be the security and familiarity of where you are now, something is making you want to look elsewhere.

 

[Jessica Booker]

It might be worthwhile having a conversation internally with partners/HR at your current firm and explain you have other offers on the table but that you really want to understand how your career might be supported beyond the TC. It at least gives them an equal opportunity to pitch to you like the firms you have offers with have.

Considering you have offers on the table, its not like there is any risk of doing this. You could be leaving anyway, so I don't see what you would have to lose by having an honest and transparent conversation with them, especially if you feel you could have stronger working relationships given the remote working.

Maybe the partners who you admire are the ones to speak to, especially if you think their loyalty could also go elsewhere. Although, as I mentioned earlier, you may find opportunities to follow them later down the line anyway. It isn't uncommon for partners to bring associates with them when they do move firms.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I'll definitely do that - my only concern with reaching out to them and having protracted conversations is that if I leave, it may damage my relationship and chances to return to the team, but I'm not sure if that's a legitimate concern.

If anything, having a conversation with them is less likely to cause damage than not having a conversation with them.

Not having a conversation with them suggests you aren't bothered to at least enquire. Having a conversation with them is probably a better way to keep the door potentially open, rather than not having a conversation (in my opinion anyway).

 

[SAK]

It is honestly scarcely believable that an NQ at a city law firm would ask a forum where (to be polite) a bunch of kids are on.

Strongly advise you speak to a senior associate / a partner to discuss career strategy, not on here.

For what it's worth, you'll basically work a lot more in US firms but get better much better comp. Its the age old question of comp v 0 life outside of work.

Source: legal headhunter placing private practice lawyers into PE

 

[Jessica Booker]

It is honestly scarcely believable that an NQ at a city law firm would ask a forum where (to be polite) a bunch of kids are on.

Strongly advise you speak to a senior associate / a partner to discuss career strategy, not on here.

For what it's worth, you'll basically work a lot more in US firms but get better much better comp. Its the age old question of comp v 0 life outside of work.

Source: legal headhunter placing private practice lawyers into PE

That tone isn’t tolerated here. I recommend reading our terms and rules here: https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/forum/help/terms/

Not everyone on this forum is a prospective trainee/trying to apply for TCs, and if you had read the advice given from various people, you would see that not only is that the case but that people can still provide there own useful insight without being condescending.

As someone who was only applying for roles less than nine months ago (going by your other post), I’d encourage your source to contribute to this thread directly, rather than via you if they really want to help. But if you or they do, please keep it respectful.