Hi [USER=5063]@Jacob Miller[/USER] & the other forum members - hope you're all doing well!
Many thanks for your insights on this forum Jacob, I've really been enjoying your articles, especially ones regarding law firm assessment centres!
I was wondering if you could shed some light on what you think would be the very specific differences between Travers Smith & Macfarlanes, seeing as the 2 firms have very similar business models, and are truly the only remaining "silver circle" firms (per the definition coined by legal media outlets more than 10 years ago), seeing as they have sought to maintain their exclusively London-based foothold, instead of opting for internationalisation. (I guess Slaughter & May and Mischon de Reya could also be considered to have a similar business model).
But with regards to Travers Smith & Macfarlanes, I've noted the following key similarities:
- Strong PE & corporate focus
- Lack of varied finance practices (e.g.: no project finance practices unlike other more international firms in the city)
- Growing disputes practices
- Best friends networks with firms in international jurisdictions
However, I've also noted the following differences:
- Macfarlanes seems to outperform Travers Smith in a few financial metrics
- Macfarlanes seems to have an edge on disputes (constitutes a larger portion of their revenue, in comparison to Travers Smith) + has a private client practice, which Travers Smith does not
- Travers Smith has a smaller trainee intake (25 vs 33, per Legal Cheek)
But apart from the above, are there any other differences you'd think I'm missing out on? The two firms seem to be obvious competitors in the London legal market, especially for high-end corporate work, with very high-quality training programs!
Furthermore, as a future trainee at Travers Smith, what unique advantages do you think Travers Smith has over a firm like Macfarlanes?
I'd sincerely appreciate your (and anybody else's) insights on the same!
Thank you very much in advance!
