Career options to re apply to law firms

[Jacobbb]

Hi everyone! I am posting this because I could really use your advice on which job I should choose for next year. I didn't secure a VS or a TC this year and I hope to re-apply to City law firms next year while working. I am thinking of choosing between the two based on which one (if either) could give me an edge in applications.

The first is a New Analyst position at a top international investment bank (i.e. Goldman/J.P Morgan) based in Warsaw. This sits within Regulatory Operations so could give me additional connection to law in terms of working closely with regulatory issues and the firm's legal department. Although the office is fully English speaking and the job is entirely in English, my worry is whether the fact that it is based in Warsaw will be a big disadvantage when applying to law firms in London (i.e. the way it would be perceived by grad recruitment). It also is in middle/back office, unlike the second offer.

The second offer is in business development at a FAANG firm in London, where effectively I would work in sales/business consulting. This would provide me with more client contact and client focus in terms of managing and liaising with clients. I would effectively be on calls with clients every single day from the very start. I would also have the chance to launch my own projects. The advantage of this job is that it is based in London (so perhaps better viewed by recruitment) and at an innovative large tech firm. No legal aspect of the job though.

I am leading towards the first offer because it seems to me that it could be better perceived as both a 'brand' name and a law-related role by recruitment in the UK, but my main concern is that it is based in Warsaw and hence I am not sure how that fact will be perceived by grad rec. My other concern is that Operations sit within middle/back office, and although this means that I can pursue a position with some legal aspect to it, I am not sure if a front office sales role at FAANG wouldn't be perceived more favourable.

My last question is – would the answer differ based on the law firm? I am planning to apply to the large internationals (Baker McKenzie, DLA Piper, Dentons) and both Magic and Silver Circle. I will probably avoid mainly transactional M&A focused US-law firms. My dream is Mishcon de Reya – as a more 'quirky' of the bunch perhaps they would view the FAANG option as the better one because of the exposure to tech and innovation? Or would they rather have someone from a more 'traditional' firm like a top investment bank.

I would be extremely thankful for any insight you could provide!

 

[Jessica Booker]

“Brand name” doesn’t really mean a lot for training contracts in all honesty, unless it is a law firm. I don’t think location actually means a lot either, especially if you have other ties to the city/location. However, loads of people move to London for roles and have no ties to the city, and secure TCs so I don’t think that is an issue either.

I’d personal go for the role that you think you will enjoy the most and get the most out of in terms of skills/development - this is the most important part here - that will ultimately impact your application more than a job title or employer name.

You also need to think about where you want to live and how that impacts your life, as well as how that could impact your ability to apply for future programmes/training contracts.

In short, don’t worry about how a recruiter may perceive it. It’s far more important about how you feel about it.

 

[RoughWood]

I have no experience with regards to City firms, but depending on your current employment history, the second role with enhanced client contact sounds like to would allow you to develop some really beneficial transferrable skills and competencies that would be viewed favourably by firms.

The first job role sounds like it would be a good experience but you would then have to justify the 'why not investment banking' questions and ultimately would you rather have the experience of living and working in Warsaw?

I would go for the role that you would most want to do and will give you the best experiences and skillset.

 

[Jacobbb]

“Brand name” doesn’t really mean a lot for training contracts in all honesty, unless it is a law firm. I don’t think location actually means a lot either, especially if you have other ties to the city/location. However, loads of people move to London for roles and have no ties to the city, and secure TCs so I don’t think that is an issue either.

I’d personal go for the role that you think you will enjoy the most and get the most out of in terms of skills/development - this is the most important part here - that will ultimately impact your application more than a job title or employer name.

You also need to think about where you want to live and how that impacts your life, as well as how that could impact your ability to apply for future programmes/training contracts.

In short, don’t worry about how a recruiter may perceive it. It’s far more important about how you feel about it.

The first job role sounds like it would be a good experience but you would then have to justify the 'why not investment banking' questions and ultimately would you rather have the experience of living and working in Warsaw?

I would go for the role that you would most want to do and will give you the best experiences and skillset.

Thank you for both of the replies! Spinning off that then, would you say that the 'legal aspect' of the first job which is tasks like ensuring that the entity's operations meet the regulatory standards, reporting to the UK regulator and consulting with the Legal Department on any issues wouldn't really matter? I thought that it could be a good way of showing that I am interested in the legal aspect of business and that I want to go into it much further (hence decision to apply to TCs/VSs) (I am also coming from a non-law accounting and finance background but have done quite a lot of stuff within our uni's law society).

And thank you @Jessica Booker for your insight about the location!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thank you for both of the replies! Spinning off that then, would you say that the 'legal aspect' of the first job which is tasks like ensuring that the entity's operations meet the regulatory standards, reporting to the UK regulator and consulting with the Legal Department on any issues wouldn't really matter? I thought that it could be a good way of showing that I am interested in the legal aspect of business and that I want to go into it much further (hence decision to apply to TCs/VSs) (I am also coming from a non-law accounting and finance background but have done quite a lot of stuff within our uni's law society).

And thank you @Jessica Booker for your insight about the location!

No - I think those responsibilities (on the face of it) sounds the most transferable.

It’s hard for me to decipher the other role but it sounds more like a sales role than a consultancy role. So although it would give you client contact, it would be in a very different way to law firm. I may have read that wrong though, and it could be more of a consultancy based role (which I think would bring up the same questions around motivation as being at an investment bank though).

 

[Jacob Miller]

Hi everyone! I am posting this because I could really use your advice on which job I should choose for next year. I didn't secure a VS or a TC this year and I hope to re-apply to City law firms next year while working. I am thinking of choosing between the two based on which one (if either) could give me an edge in applications.

The first is a New Analyst position at a top international investment bank (i.e. Goldman/J.P Morgan) based in Warsaw. This sits within Regulatory Operations so could give me additional connection to law in terms of working closely with regulatory issues and the firm's legal department. Although the office is fully English speaking and the job is entirely in English, my worry is whether the fact that it is based in Warsaw will be a big disadvantage when applying to law firms in London (i.e. the way it would be perceived by grad recruitment). It also is in middle/back office, unlike the second offer.

The second offer is in business development at a FAANG firm in London, where effectively I would work in sales/business consulting. This would provide me with more client contact and client focus in terms of managing and liaising with clients. I would effectively be on calls with clients every single day from the very start. I would also have the chance to launch my own projects. The advantage of this job is that it is based in London (so perhaps better viewed by recruitment) and at an innovative large tech firm. No legal aspect of the job though.

I am leading towards the first offer because it seems to me that it could be better perceived as both a 'brand' name and a law-related role by recruitment in the UK, but my main concern is that it is based in Warsaw and hence I am not sure how that fact will be perceived by grad rec. My other concern is that Operations sit within middle/back office, and although this means that I can pursue a position with some legal aspect to it, I am not sure if a front office sales role at FAANG wouldn't be perceived more favourable.

My last question is – would the answer differ based on the law firm? I am planning to apply to the large internationals (Baker McKenzie, DLA Piper, Dentons) and both Magic and Silver Circle. I will probably avoid mainly transactional M&A focused US-law firms. My dream is Mishcon de Reya – as a more 'quirky' of the bunch perhaps they would view the FAANG option as the better one because of the exposure to tech and innovation? Or would they rather have someone from a more 'traditional' firm like a top investment bank.

I would be extremely thankful for any insight you could provide!

First off, your folks had wonderful taste in baby names, 10/10 commendable name choice.

I would tend to say that these are all great opportunities and it really ought to come down to what you feel you'll enjoy the most and take the most from. FWIW, from a practicality perspective, as things open up it will become easier to engage with London firms if you're in London as opposed to having to attend from Poland. As Jess says, though, 'brand name' isn't really a material consideration here so I wouldn't let that weigh in too much on your considerations.

Best of luck

 

[Jacobbb]

Thank you @Jacob Miller and @Jessica Booker ! so from what I understand this is not a make or break decision when it comes to TC/VS applications next year... To be honest the second position seems a bit like I could develop myself more and be more proactive. It is less connected to law but I think since it is about transferrable skills then perhaps is worth taking.

Also apologies for not explaining the second role clearly enough, I tried to be semi cryptic to not indicate the specific firm . You basically get assigned B2B clients and you work with them to improve their business and profitability on the platform. You also get to launch your own projects/initiatives within the firm. This is very much kind of commercial awareness and interpersonal skills since you learn someone else's business from the front to back to be able to advise them. You also get much more responsibility and opportunities to take ownership, which is something that I would definitely enjoy!

 

[Ruzzelyn]

Hi everyone! I am posting this because I could really use your advice on which job I should choose for next year. I didn't secure a VS or a TC this year and I hope to re-apply to City law firms next year while working. I am thinking of choosing between the two based on which one (if either) could give me an edge in applications.

The first is a New Analyst position at a top international investment bank (i.e. Goldman/J.P Morgan) based in Warsaw. This sits within Regulatory Operations so could give me additional connection to law in terms of working closely with regulatory issues and the firm's legal department. Although the office is fully English speaking and the job is entirely in English, my worry is whether the fact that it is based in Warsaw will be a big disadvantage when applying to law firms in London (i.e. the way it would be perceived by grad recruitment). It also is in middle/back office, unlike the second offer.

The second offer is in business development at a FAANG firm in London, where effectively I would work in sales/business consulting. This would provide me with more client contact and client focus in terms of managing and liaising with clients. I would effectively be on calls with clients every single day from the very start. I would also have the chance to launch my own projects. The advantage of this job is that it is based in London (so perhaps better viewed by recruitment) and at an innovative large tech firm. No legal aspect of the job though.

I am leading towards the first offer because it seems to me that it could be better perceived as both a 'brand' name and a law-related role by recruitment in the UK, but my main concern is that it is based in Warsaw and hence I am not sure how that fact will be perceived by grad rec. My other concern is that Operations sit within middle/back office, and although this means that I can pursue a position with some legal aspect to it, I am not sure if a front office sales role at FAANG wouldn't be perceived more favourable.

My last question is – would the answer differ based on the law firm? I am planning to apply to the large internationals (Baker McKenzie, DLA Piper, Dentons) and both Magic and Silver Circle. I will probably avoid mainly transactional M&A focused US-law firms. My dream is Mishcon de Reya – as a more 'quirky' of the bunch perhaps they would view the FAANG option as the better one because of the exposure to tech and innovation? Or would they rather have someone from a more 'traditional' firm like a top investment bank.

I would be extremely thankful for any insight you could provide!

Hey there! Just wanted to give some thoughts coming from someone who's faced this type of decision previously. These sound like excellent opportunities for skills and professional development! It comes down to which skills you value and want to highlight in your future applications to a firm. In turn, think of which of those roles could provide you with the environment to hone those skills. Don't get bogged down by taking a non-legal related role either. Think of it as a law-adjacent role that will give you a wider understanding of how a business (a law firm's clients) or its industry works which will make you a rounded trainee lawyer. The fact that you are able to initiate your own projects (be solution oriented) and get client exposure (understand client needs) for the second role will set you up to become a strong candidate IMO.

In short, go with the role that will give you the most opportunities for self-development! My current role is somewhat similar to that second role and while it has no legal aspect, because I told my team lead and director about my law career aspirations, I was given a short term project opportunity to work at one of our client's in-house legal team. Now, this might not be the case in other workplaces but the point is that you never know where that type of opportunity will arise. This reply might be too late, but hope this helps you and others facing the same dilemma as well! Best of luck