Magic Circle Trainee after PhD

[City Lawyer wannabe]

Hello,

I am considering undertaking a PhD in Law and then to pursue a position as a trainee solicitor at a Magic Circle law firm.

I have seen quite a few people on LinkedIn who after doing a PhD have gone onto become trainee solicitors at Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy etc.


Does anybody know more about this? I myself thought it was odd to see.

 

[whisperingrock]

I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but weren't you aiming to do a third LLM as recently as yesterday? Why the sudden shift to a PhD?

 

[City Lawyer wannabe]

Hi, my question is one of contemplation.

I did some researching via LinkedIn and found that there are quite a few Magic Circle solicitors who either studied different degrees before a law degree or after have gone on to do PhDs.

For example, some undertook their PhD in 2010 and have only just acquired a TC.

I would like to go on and pursue a PhD at some point in my career but I figured holding off until later in in life because I thought that it may seriously disadvantage my chances of a TC.

But I am quite surprised to see quite a few PhD holders make the leap into MC firms.

 

[whisperingrock]

I'm curious, whats the fixation on Magic Circle firms? Is that to the exclusion of other types or firms? Is it a prestige thing? Are you just particularly attracted to their practice areas?

As someone said in your thread yesterday, most grad rec will likely be curious why after so many years of study you decide to go into commercial law instead of staying in legal academia. A PhD might make them lean even more in that direction, but thats probably something for @Jessica Booker to answer rather than me.

 

[Jacob Miller]

Hi @City Lawyer wannabe,

If I'm being completely honest, my understanding and perception is (and remains) that, overwhelmingly, postgraduate qualifications don't actually make you any more employable than you would otherwise be in terms of commercial law. There are a few reasons for this... I think partly that firms perceive those who have lots of postgrads as being 'career academics' who may struggle to really think like a commercial practitioner (at the end of the day, academic discussions can often become highly theoretical and not representative of the real world), and, as WhisperingRock mentions, those who have spent a long time in academia could have a harder time justifying the switch into commercial practice.
I do genuinely think that people coming from an academic background do need a major paradigm shift out of 'academic' and into 'practical' mode to succeed in practice... even in my experience as an undergrad, I've been told in the past that I've approached things from an academic/ theoretical perspective too much and needed to drill down, simplify and be more commercially/ practically orientated. I think this effect could be compounded by spending even more time in academia (or, in the very least, perceived as being the case).

As a caveat to what I've said, it's worth mentioning that I personally would never want to do further postgrads etc, uni is a means to an end for me and I can't wait to graduate! That might skew my position/ perception slightly.

That isn't remotely to say, though, that it's impossible (or even improbable) that you would be able to move into practice at a high profile MC (or similar) firm having done additional qualifications: if you're the right candidate, you're the right candidate. You'll just need to be really strong in justifying why you want to make the switch to a practical career rather than an academic one, and be acutely aware of the perceptions that exist surrounding being 'overqualified' in the academic sense to be able to show that you've got all the requisite practical skills and can think in that way.

Hope this helps!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hello,

I am considering undertaking a PhD in Law and then to pursue a position as a trainee solicitor at a Magic Circle law firm.

I have seen quite a few people on LinkedIn who after doing a PhD have gone onto become trainee solicitors at Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy etc.


Does anybody know more about this? I myself thought it was odd to see.

To be fair, it is a rarity. Not many people go from a PhD to being a trainee.

In part that is because many don’t want to make the transition, and so firms don’t get a lot of applications from PhD students. This may be unfair, but having interviewed a number of PhD students, there are many who don’t seem to be able to articulate why the transition, or seem to misunderstand the role they would be doing.

There may be more of late, as I think there has been a general brain drain within universities in the UK especially. Academic positions can sometimes be harder to find than a TC, and academic funding in many areas is pretty naff, especially post Brexit. I am finding a lot more people who are bored of academia despite thinking their career would be in it and who are looking to transition to something different. Many more are struggling to see a career they want within academia due to lack of interesting opportunities. I think many assume law is going to be “academic” like when really it couldn’t be much further removed from working in academia.

 

[City Lawyer wannabe]

Thank you for your replies guys, I am very appreciative of them.

Magic Circle, I am fond of their practice areas and obviously prestige plays a part, but in no way am I opposed to other law firms. The inclusion of 'Magic Circle' was used purely to differentiate from other law firms so that users would not misconstrue the question as 'TC at 25'.

I am curious perhaps @Jessica Booker can help...

From a law firm's perspective what is the appeal of recruiting somebody who has done a PhD?

I have noticed that a lot of these PhDs are STEM which makes sense, an expert may be advantageous to the firm for certain practice areas (IP for example).


From what I can see, there is no set criteria for a firm, it appears to be the candidate who is most likely to add value to the firm and can demonstrate in the application process as such (among other essential and given qualities).


25 is still young, I think that I should give it my best shot and apply, I guess its the only way I shall ever truly know.

 

[HorsesForCoursesNeighNeighNeigh]

Have you not yet applied for a vacation scheme or training contract then? If that’s what you want, that should be the first thing you apply for, and would have been applying for during your previous two LLMs? If you don’t get one immediately, then the best thing to do to show your commitment is work in a very similar area, like being a paralegal or something that proves a commercial law interest.

A PhD or third LLM just takes you further away from “commercial” law. If what you ultimately want is a TC then that should be your focus. The aspect of your profile that needs evidence is the “commercial” not “law” aspect.

A PhD is a ridiculously large and expensive project to even consider if you’re not committed to a career in academia or otherwise have some significant reason about why it’s crucial to your career. It sounds like you haven’t applied for one yet either (or even gone through the horribly competitive funding process), they are a lot harder to get than a masters and you will only be accepted if they really believe your commitment. You’ll only get through a PhD if you really really want to, and afterwards it will be zero help for most job applications.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thank you for your replies guys, I am very appreciative of them.

Magic Circle, I am fond of their practice areas and obviously prestige plays a part, but in no way am I opposed to other law firms. The inclusion of 'Magic Circle' was used purely to differentiate from other law firms so that users would not misconstrue the question as 'TC at 25'.

I am curious perhaps @Jessica Booker can help...

From a law firm's perspective what is the appeal of recruiting somebody who has done a PhD?

I have noticed that a lot of these PhDs are STEM which makes sense, an expert may be advantageous to the firm for certain practice areas (IP for example).


From what I can see, there is no set criteria for a firm, it appears to be the candidate who is most likely to add value to the firm and can demonstrate in the application process as such (among other essential and given qualities).


25 is still young, I think that I should give it my best shot and apply, I guess its the only way I shall ever truly know.

To be frank there is no appeal in the PhD itself. It’s the candidate who owns the PhD

 

[M&A]

I'm finishing my PhD in a different discipline whilst doing the GDL part-time and I was successful in my first round of interviews last year.

I made it clear in my application that it will be finished by the time I begin my TC.

It came up in both my assessment centre and partner interviews and the response was overwhelmingly positive. There are many relevant transferable skills, research, drafting and attention to detail just to mention a few.

As I'm also a career changer it was another good way of evidencing my willingness to learn and to work under supervision. I could tell the litigation partner was the most interested/impressed by it. It is obviously far less relevant in a transactional seat unless your research has to do with that area of law.

But beware of embarking on a PhD in and of itself would be my main thing... choose your topic and supervisor wisely!