Is applying to vac schemes still worth it if I'm going to US law school next year?

[B1806]

I'm a penultimate year law student at a London university but got into a dual degree programme recently through which I'll be able to get a JD at Columbia Law School in NYC. Vac scheme applications are kind of a pain with all of the other stuff I have to do this year so I was wondering whether it really makes any sense to continue applying if I'm almost certainly not going to be a trainee in the UK.

Would vac schemes still be an advantage when I enter the US market? Are they a really nice experience and worth it on their own? Should I maybe just apply to fewer (i.e. like 5 in total rather than 10 or something)?

Thanks!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Won’t be a massive direct advantage in the US market (given how competitive it is). Obviously might help you develop skills/knowledge that might then make your application more competitive though.

 

[Manifesting]

In the US, big law firms and other institutions don’t typically offer undergraduate internship experiences so it is not expected that undergraduates have commercial law experiences.

That said, work experience is still highly valued. I would advise you to find an internship where you really will be able to grow over a longer period of time. And that could be at any place you want, law or non-law. In the US market, two-week long internships don’t constitute substantial work experience. In London, some law firms offer internship placements on top of or instead of vac schemes. I would prioritise those if you want something in commercial law. Those should be less competitive too than vac schemes and allow you be there for way longer.

At Columbia, you’ll have access to on-campus recruiting and you’ll automatically receive interviews with top big law firms. In the US, if you go to a top law school, you are pretty much guaranteed a big law job. Visa issues might make it slightly tougher but from what I heard it’s still doable.

 

[Jessica Booker]

In the US, big law firms and other institutions don’t typically offer undergraduate internship experiences so it is not expected that undergraduates have commercial law experiences.

That said, work experience is still highly valued. I would advise you to find an internship where you really will be able to grow over a longer period of time. And that could be at any place you want, law or non-law. In the US market, two-week long internships don’t constitute substantial work experience. In London, some law firms offer internship placements on top of or instead of vac schemes. I would prioritise those if you want something in commercial law. Those should be less competitive too than vac schemes and allow you be there for way longer.

At Columbia, you’ll have access to on-campus recruiting and you’ll automatically receive interviews with top big law firms. In the US, if you go to a top law school, you are pretty much guaranteed a big law job. Visa issues might make it slightly tougher but from what I heard it’s still doable.

I don’t agree with the last paragraph. From my experience of recruiting in the US and doing the campus recruitment there, it is highly competitive, probably more so than the UK. So being “guaranteed a big law job” just won’t be true for the majority, even at well known/top tier universities.

 

[B1806]

I don’t agree with the last paragraph. From my experience of recruiting in the US and doing the campus recruitment there, it is highly competitive, probably more so than the UK. So being “guaranteed a big law job” just won’t be true for the majority, even at well known/top tier universities.

Surely the presence of on-campus interviews does offer a massive advantage, no?
The ABA statistics CLS puts out seem to indicate an overwhelming majority of their graduates secure positions at law firms with 500+ employees. LinkedIn also seems to show a similar picture, so I'm assuming there's something to the institutional factor. I get that correlation =/=causation, but the numbers are quite frankly massive and I don't think that everyone at Columbia is just that much better than graduates elsewhere. I don't think anything in the world is really guaranteed per se, but surely CLS would give me a reasonably good chance (especially considering US firms tend to put a lot more weight on applicants' institutions than UK firms, which tend to be more meritocratic), no?

That said, work experience is still highly valued. I would advise you to find an internship where you really will be able to grow over a longer period of time. And that could be at any place you want, law or non-law. In the US market, two-week long internships don’t constitute substantial work experience. In London, some law firms offer internship placements on top of or instead of vac schemes. I would prioritise those if you want something in commercial law. Those should be less competitive too than vac schemes and allow you be there for way longer.

That's interesting. Do you by any chance know of any specific firms that do those sorts of schemes? I think Simmons & Simmons does a placement year but I'd need to be on a course that requires a year in industry to do that. Or is this typically offered by smaller firms (i.e. not the ones usually featured on Chambers Student or Legalcheek)? If so, I'll definitely try to get something over the summer! Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Surely the presence of on-campus interviews does offer a massive advantage, no?
The ABA statistics CLS puts out seem to indicate an overwhelming majority of their graduates secure positions at law firms with 500+ employees. LinkedIn also seems to show a similar picture, so I'm assuming there's something to the institutional factor. I get that correlation =/=causation, but the numbers are quite frankly massive and I don't think that everyone at Columbia is just that much better than graduates elsewhere. I don't think anything in the world is really guaranteed per se, but surely CLS would give me a reasonably good chance (especially considering US firms tend to put a lot more weight on applicants' institutions than UK firms, which tend to be more meritocratic), no?


That's interesting. Do you by any chance know of any specific firms that do those sorts of schemes? I think Simmons & Simmons does a placement year but I'd need to be on a course that requires a year in industry to do that. Or is this typically offered by smaller firms (i.e. not the ones usually featured on Chambers Student or Legalcheek)? If so, I'll definitely try to get something over the summer! Thanks for the heads up!

To put it into perspective, I did 40 interviews in 2 days and only had 1 role I was recruiting for when doing US recruitment, and that was after I had cut down the applications from around 350-400 before I flew out - the applications only came from a handful of top tier US universities too, mainly on the East coast. Campus interviews help but they don't guarantee anything.

US legal job market (especially New York) is far far more competitive than London in my opinion. Like UK universities, I suspect US ones can do a lot to manipulate their data of how many of their grads work in organisations. I would suspect many of the law grads aren't even in legal roles but are in other large corporate organisations.

 

[FutureCity]

I don’t agree with the last paragraph. From my experience of recruiting in the US and doing the campus recruitment there, it is highly competitive, probably more so than the UK. So being “guaranteed a big law job” just won’t be true for the majority, even at well known/top tier universities.

Guaranteed is a strong word but if you are at a T14 (Top 14 JD programs in the US, which includes Columbia), you have a very good shot at an associate role at an AmLaw 100 firm which pays very well.

Here is the statistics from Columbia directly: https://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/employment-statistics

304 of 431 graduates are employed at law firms with a size of 500+

 

[Jessica Booker]

Guaranteed is a strong word but if you are at a T14 (Top 14 JD programs in the US, which includes Columbia), you have a very good shot at an associate role at an AmLaw 100 firm which pays very well.

Here is the statistics from Columbia directly: https://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/employment-statistics

304 of 431 graduates are employed at law firms with a size of 500+

what were they employed as though? I’d be interested to know if they were all lawyers, or whether they were is support roles (and how long they were employed for too).

 

[FutureCity]

what were they employed as though? I’d be interested to know if they were all lawyers, or whether they were is support roles (and how long they were employed for too).

From the same link, it states that 416 of them required to pass the bar for their role, so it’s an associate level position.

In relation to how long they were employed, I doubt there would be accurate statistics but you can expect a high level of job security given the prestige of the firm with 500+ lawyers.

 

[Jessica Booker]

From the same link, it states that 416 of them required to pass the bar for their role, so it’s an associate level position.

In relation to how long they were employed, I doubt there would be accurate statistics but you can expect a high level of job security given the prestige of the firm with 500+ lawyers.

Im still not convinced of either point - but I can only go by my experience which influences that view. I know how these surveys go - saying that you needed the Bar to get the job doesn’t necessarily mean you are an associate. In comparison, look how many paralegal roles in the UK need the LPC which isn’t necessary for the job but is a requirement on the job spec.

 

[FutureCity]

Im still not convinced of either point - but I can only go by my experience which influences that view. I know how these surveys go - saying that you needed the Bar to get the job doesn’t necessarily mean you are an associate. In comparison, look how many paralegal roles in the UK need the LPC which isn’t necessary for the job but is a requirement on the job spec.

The LPC isn’t a valid comparison for the bar exam. Once you pass the bar, you are allowed, legally, to practice as an associate — similar to finishing your training contract.

No firm in their right mind would hire a qualified attorney, for most certainly higher salary, to deliver work another would be able to do.

 

[Jessica Booker]

The LPC isn’t a valid comparison for the bar exam. Once you pass the bar, you are allowed, legally, to practice as an associate — similar to finishing your training contract.

No firm in their right mind would hire a qualified attorney, for most certainly higher salary, to deliver work another would be able to do.

Although plenty of firms do just that. Basic supply and demand in the labour market.

This NYT article was interesting and was aligned with my experiences:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/business/dealbook/burdened-with-debt-law-school-graduates-struggle-in-job-market.html

 

[FutureCity]

Although plenty of firms do just that. Basic supply and demand in the labour market.

This NYT article was interesting and was aligned with my experiences:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/...-school-graduates-struggle-in-job-market.html

According to the same source from Columbia I shared earlier, of the 431 JD graduates in 2019, 416 were in full-time positions that required passing the bar. That is 96.5% of the graduating class. Of those in full time employment, 73% were employed as an associate in a firm with 501+ lawyers. Those figures are what I base my argument on.

I am not discounting the experiences shared in the NYT article, but the statistics show otherwise. This is just my two cents on the matter. You may have your own views.

 

[Jessica Booker]

According to the same source from Columbia I shared earlier, of the 431 JD graduates in 2019, 416 were in full-time positions that required passing the bar. That is 96.5% of the graduating class. Of those in full time employment, 73% were employed as an associate in a firm with 501+ lawyers. Those figures are what I base my argument on.

I am not discounting the experiences shared in the NYT article, but the statistics show otherwise. This is just my two cents on the matter. You may have your own views.

And that’s where our views differ - I know how those statistics are cut, and purposefully so.

Columbia is definitely someone’s best bet for a JD if they want to work at a major law firm though (although probably only if you have the right to work in the US)

https://www.law.com/2020/03/05/the-top-50-go-to-law-schools-3/