question about international law experience: I am British but live in another country and have most of my legal experience in a firm in the foreign country. I do have UK experience but the most extensive experience is from this country. Has anyone who has foreign experience ever been asked to justify why London, and why not the country they have the experience in?
Also, do firms tend to see UK experience as better than experience in a different jurisdiction?
Not a million miles away from your situation: I'm on a Scots Law LLB programme, live in Scotland and have legal experience across both jurisdictions. I'll be training and qualifying as a solicitor in England (eventually!)
"Why London and not Scotland?" Is something I've been asked regularly, and I'm always honest in my answer: London, to me, is a more exciting place to be with a bigger, more dynamic legal market and the opportunity to work on massive things that simply don't come up in Scotland.
In my experience of my CV as a whole, I've always tended to find that it's basically been everything apart from my legal work experience that's been asked about: end of the day, interviewers know what open days/ internships/ vac schemes are and what they're there for, they want to hear about more interesting stuff than that. To that end, I would actually leverage international experience both to justify your decision to train in London but also about any unique or different outlooks/ perspectives that has given you on the issues you've encountered. In my own experience, I've noticed that Scots law-backgrounded people think and approach issues quite differently to English law-backgrounded folks - I dare say this will be similar for you
