Moving from Magic Circle to US firms

[Numerius Negidius]

I am a second year student holding a training contract offer from a Magic Circle firm. I am not sure whether I should still bother applying to vacation schemes with US firms. I do hope to work for US firms in the long term given the higher salaries, but I have also heard that US firms hire a considerable number of Magic Circle lawyers upon qualification or several years PQE. With that in mind, are there any advantages to starting off at a MC firm instead of a US firm? How hard is it to move from the MC to US firms?

The compensation in the short term isn't such a big deal given that trainee salaries are similar and taxes mean there is not such a large difference at NQ, but US firm salaries seem to be considerably higher thereafter.

I am also considering immigrating to the US in the future, though from my understanding this simply doesn't happen very often whether I work for a US or UK firm, so I guess that is not a consideration.

 

[Jessica Booker]

If you want to work at a US firm, my advice would be continue to apply to US firms and try to secure a training contract with one. It’s by far the best outcome to do that now rather than hoping you will move at a later date.

As a second year law student you can hold on to your offer until mid September 2021 with no pressure to accept it, so you might as well just try and get the offer you truly want knowing you have this as back up if needed

 

[Alice G]

I agree with what @Dheepa says here. For me, the style of training offered by Freshfields and other MC firms was a big draw for me and the level of mentoring you get along with that - it was the key thing which really saw me switch tact in my second cycle. It really depends on the sort of person you are though I think because that was a draw for me but I know so many other people would prefer the more 'in at the deep end' and less hands-on approach, @Daniel Boden for example who for as long as I have known him has always sought the US route and might be a good person to interject here to offer you some more balanced advice. There isn't a right or wrong really, objectively speaking, but it depends on you as the individual.

I also echo the salary point @Dheepa mentions but appreciate this is very sensitive subject matter. In my honest and frank opinion I think it is best to focus on where you will thrive and where you will be happy, You could have all the money in the world but if your mental and potentially physical health is being impacted because you are unhappy or exhausted then I personally don't think any amount of money can compensate for that. Mental health is (thankfully) now something many firms are better attuned to and more knowledgable about but this is still a very stressful career path and so the mentoring and the support factored into this point for me as well.

 

[Kola]

This is something I've personally been conflicted about. I have done a lot of research on the topic, and there are many things that differentiate MC firms from US firms on a broad level. That being said, I think my confusion about which is better is more so a reflection on me being unsure about what I want. Ultimately, as many others have said, it entirely depends on what you want, and the better understanding you have of your future desires and aspirations, the more likely it is that you will make the correct decision.

You should probably consider the following:

1. Do you want a large trainee intake (MC) or a small trainee intake (US) and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. responsibility, impact, participation in significant deals, social aspects

2. Do you want a planned training structure (MC) or prefer learning as you work and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. are you someone that can handle making mistakes if it means you can learn from them or are you someone that prefers to be informed before completing a task?

3. What are your interest? MC firms offer trainees a far more diverse array of departments to choose from whereas most US firms focus primarily on PE, restructuring, corporate M&A etc. Everything else is a secondary consideration if a consideration at all. If you're someone who is really passionate about art & cultural property law, for example, it's probably better to go down the MC route, whereas if you really care about PE, you can't really beat the expertise that US firms hold. There are also more niche considerations to take into account regarding departmental differences. MC firms, for example, are more pre-eminent in public M&A in comparison to US firms. The departmental layout is also different - in MC firms, departments are specialised, whereas in US firms, departments are, in some cases, there in name only and trainees are expected to work cross-department almost every day.

4. International aspects - which markets do you care more about? For example, if you really want to engage in US related work, US firms would obviously be better, but that may not necessarily be the case for Asia-Pacific or Europe related work.

5. Other considerations would probably include compensation and prestige. Would you be happy with £100k instead of £150k etc.

It's probably important to disclose that I am not a trainee yet, so there are probably far better people who can give you advice on this. Also, if anyone sees anything wrong with what I've said above, please feel free to correct me.

 

[Dheepa]

This is something I've personally been conflicted about. I have done a lot of research on the topic, and there are many things that differentiate MC firms from US firms on a broad level. That being said, I think my confusion about which is better is more so a reflection on me being unsure about what I want. Ultimately, as many others have said, it entirely depends on what you want, and the better understanding you have of your future desires and aspirations, the more likely it is that you will make the correct decision.

You should probably consider the following:

1. Do you want a large trainee intake (MC) or a small trainee intake (US) and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. responsibility, impact, participation in significant deals, social aspects

2. Do you want a planned training structure (MC) or prefer learning as you work and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. are you someone that can handle making mistakes if it means you can learn from them or are you someone that prefers to be informed before completing a task?

3. What are your interest? MC firms offer trainees a far more diverse array of departments to choose from whereas most US firms focus primarily on PE, restructuring, corporate M&A etc. Everything else is a secondary consideration if a consideration at all. If you're someone who is really passionate about art & cultural property law, for example, it's probably better to go down the MC route, whereas if you really care about PE, you can't really beat the expertise that US firms hold. There are also more niche considerations to take into account regarding departmental differences. MC firms, for example, are more pre-eminent in public M&A in comparison to US firms. The departmental layout is also different - in MC firms, departments are specialised, whereas in US firms, departments are, in some cases, there in name only and trainees are expected to work cross-department almost every day.

4. International aspects - which markets do you care more about? For example, if you really want to engage in US related work, US firms would obviously be better, but that may not necessarily be the case for Asia-Pacific or Europe related work.

5. Other considerations would probably include compensation and prestige. Would you be happy with £100k instead of £150k etc.

It's probably important to disclose that I am not a trainee yet, so there are probably far better people who can give you advice on this. Also, if anyone sees anything wrong with what I've said above, please feel free to correct me.

This is a fantastic breakdown! Couldn't agree more with all the things you've listed.

 

[Alice G]

This is something I've personally been conflicted about. I have done a lot of research on the topic, and there are many things that differentiate MC firms from US firms on a broad level. That being said, I think my confusion about which is better is more so a reflection on me being unsure about what I want. Ultimately, as many others have said, it entirely depends on what you want, and the better understanding you have of your future desires and aspirations, the more likely it is that you will make the correct decision.

You should probably consider the following:

1. Do you want a large trainee intake (MC) or a small trainee intake (US) and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. responsibility, impact, participation in significant deals, social aspects

2. Do you want a planned training structure (MC) or prefer learning as you work and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. are you someone that can handle making mistakes if it means you can learn from them or are you someone that prefers to be informed before completing a task?

3. What are your interest? MC firms offer trainees a far more diverse array of departments to choose from whereas most US firms focus primarily on PE, restructuring, corporate M&A etc. Everything else is a secondary consideration if a consideration at all. If you're someone who is really passionate about art & cultural property law, for example, it's probably better to go down the MC route, whereas if you really care about PE, you can't really beat the expertise that US firms hold. There are also more niche considerations to take into account regarding departmental differences. MC firms, for example, are more pre-eminent in public M&A in comparison to US firms. The departmental layout is also different - in MC firms, departments are specialised, whereas in US firms, departments are, in some cases, there in name only and trainees are expected to work cross-department almost every day.

4. International aspects - which markets do you care more about? For example, if you really want to engage in US related work, US firms would obviously be better, but that may not necessarily be the case for Asia-Pacific or Europe related work.

5. Other considerations would probably include compensation and prestige. Would you be happy with £100k instead of £150k etc.

It's probably important to disclose that I am not a trainee yet, so there are probably far better people who can give you advice on this. Also, if anyone sees anything wrong with what I've said above, please feel free to correct me.

This is great advice and a good list of key considerations

 

[Daniel Boden]

I am a second year student holding a training contract offer from a Magic Circle firm. I am not sure whether I should still bother applying to vacation schemes with US firms. I do hope to work for US firms in the long term given the higher salaries, but I have also heard that US firms hire a considerable number of Magic Circle lawyers upon qualification or several years PQE. With that in mind, are there any advantages to starting off at a MC firm instead of a US firm? How hard is it to move from the MC to US firms?

The compensation in the short term isn't such a big deal given that trainee salaries are similar and taxes mean there is not such a large difference at NQ, but US firm salaries seem to be considerably higher thereafter.

I am also considering immigrating to the US in the future, though from my understanding this simply doesn't happen very often whether I work for a US or UK firm, so I guess that is not a consideration.

Just to add to all of the excellent advice been given above, if your only reason for wanting to work at a US firm is the higher salary then I'd highly recommend against that. As @Alice G, @Dheepa and @Kola have said there is a lot more to life than money and if the high levels of responsibility and learning-by-doing training style isn't for you and could potentially have a negative impact on your life then I'd really consider taking your MC offer.

However, if you have other legitimate reasons for wanting to work at a US firm e.g. if the practice areas appeal to you and the opportunity to potentially move to the US is important to you then go for it and continue applying to US firms.

 

[Daniel Boden]

This is something I've personally been conflicted about. I have done a lot of research on the topic, and there are many things that differentiate MC firms from US firms on a broad level. That being said, I think my confusion about which is better is more so a reflection on me being unsure about what I want. Ultimately, as many others have said, it entirely depends on what you want, and the better understanding you have of your future desires and aspirations, the more likely it is that you will make the correct decision.

You should probably consider the following:

1. Do you want a large trainee intake (MC) or a small trainee intake (US) and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. responsibility, impact, participation in significant deals, social aspects

2. Do you want a planned training structure (MC) or prefer learning as you work and all the other implications that follow from each e.g. are you someone that can handle making mistakes if it means you can learn from them or are you someone that prefers to be informed before completing a task?

3. What are your interest? MC firms offer trainees a far more diverse array of departments to choose from whereas most US firms focus primarily on PE, restructuring, corporate M&A etc. Everything else is a secondary consideration if a consideration at all. If you're someone who is really passionate about art & cultural property law, for example, it's probably better to go down the MC route, whereas if you really care about PE, you can't really beat the expertise that US firms hold. There are also more niche considerations to take into account regarding departmental differences. MC firms, for example, are more pre-eminent in public M&A in comparison to US firms. The departmental layout is also different - in MC firms, departments are specialised, whereas in US firms, departments are, in some cases, there in name only and trainees are expected to work cross-department almost every day.

4. International aspects - which markets do you care more about? For example, if you really want to engage in US related work, US firms would obviously be better, but that may not necessarily be the case for Asia-Pacific or Europe related work.

5. Other considerations would probably include compensation and prestige. Would you be happy with £100k instead of £150k etc.

It's probably important to disclose that I am not a trainee yet, so there are probably far better people who can give you advice on this. Also, if anyone sees anything wrong with what I've said above, please feel free to correct me.

Very well said! Completely agree with what you've said here - clearly, you've done some brilliant research which will undoubtedly help you in your applications

 

[Numerius Negidius]

Thanks a lot everyone for the insightful comments!

I honestly don't have a strong preference as to practice area or training style/cohort size at the moment, and I'm not sure if I will really know for sure until I actually start working (perhaps this is a reason in favour of the Magic Circle since it means more opportunities to switch around).

I am concerned about the working hours and personal wellbeing at US firms, but I've always wondered whether there is really such a large difference between MC/US firms. After all, MC firms are already 11-12 hours on Legal Cheek.

 

[Alison C]

Thanks a lot everyone for the insightful comments!

I honestly don't have a strong preference as to practice area or training style/cohort size at the moment, and I'm not sure if I will really know for sure until I actually start working (perhaps this is a reason in favour of the Magic Circle since it means more opportunities to switch around).

I am concerned about the working hours and personal wellbeing at US firms, but I've always wondered whether there is really such a large difference between MC/US firms. After all, MC firms are already 11-12 hours on Legal Cheek.

I am wondering if this is something that you need to go through to convince yourself? Maybe you are one of the fortunate and blessed people who easily access what they want in life and more. On the other hand, you may find that applying to US firms is neither as pleasant nor as easy as you're assuming.

If this is an itch, you probably need to scratch it. If you can competently apply to US firms without detriment to your undergraduate studies then surely that experience is worth going through, to see what comes out in the wash. If you are worried about it now before you've even embarked on your career, you won't want to look back and think that things would have been different (ie easier, smoother, more rewarding - which they may well not be) if you'd only applied.

And I'd wholeheartedly agree with the comments about income. You are already able to access a highly competitive salary and development of a really valuable skill set, and colleagues, that should set you up for life. The starting salary is literally the 'compensation' for what the commitment involves, and it isn't a decision that is in your hands until you have that other TC offer that you haven't yet even applied for. Whether it's enormous or just plain vast, you will be able to more than meet your needs for the next few years so the ££/$$ really shouldn't be the main driver.

I'd say, scratch the itch unless you figure out that it is not worth the disruption. And if it doesn't feel good, don't do it. Lucky you!!

 

[Zoo]

Thanks a lot everyone for the insightful comments!

I honestly don't have a strong preference as to practice area or training style/cohort size at the moment, and I'm not sure if I will really know for sure until I actually start working (perhaps this is a reason in favour of the Magic Circle since it means more opportunities to switch around).

I am concerned about the working hours and personal wellbeing at US firms, but I've always wondered whether there is really such a large difference between MC/US firms. After all, MC firms are already 11-12 hours on Legal Cheek.

Some really great points have been made so far!

The hours at US firms are often something people are concerned about, understandably so. However, there’s typically not much difference between the hours at MC and US firms as they’re often working on different sides of the same deal. If the lawyers are working late at the US firm, then the MC lawyers will be too.