Picking Between Training Contracts

[Jane101]

Hi everyone!

This is my first post here so apologies if I've put it in the wrong place. I’m currently weighing offers from both Ashurst and Baker McKenzie ('BM'), and I’d really appreciate any insight/advice from those who have experience with either (or both!) firms. I know I’m incredibly lucky to be in this position and I'm grateful to even have a choice, but now I'm here I'm struggling to decide.

I've put together a rough comparison list, and would be extremely appreciative if anyone could weigh in on any of these areas:

Type and Calibre of Work

My understanding of BM is that its work is mostly multi-jurisdictional, being a global firm operating in 46 countries. Meanwhile, my understanding of Ashurst is that it's much more UK-focused, sitting on the UK government's legal panel for example. Is there a perception that one or the other is more 'prestigious' (i.e. would I be wrong to think that Ashurst would be better known in London, but BM better known globally? And would this have any impact on future career progression i.e. lateralling down the line?).

Training

Both firms take between 30-40 trainees. BM requires you take a transactional and contentious seat, whilst Ashurst requires a transactional seat and a seat in Banking & Finance/Capital Markets. Does anyone have any further insights into the training I could expect at these firms? I don’t know where I want to qualify yet, so specific strength in practice areas is unlikely to hugely impact my decision.

Work/Life Balance

BM has 25 days annual leave and target hours of 1700, whilst Ashurst has 27 days leave and a target of 1600. However, I've heard anecdotally that 'silver circle' firms essentially work 'magic circle' hours, so I'm struggling to compare the two here.

Culture

I've met people from both firms, and they all seem lovely! This makes it hard to differentiate here.

Career Progression

Does anyone have any insight into what career progression looks like at these firms? As the larger firm BM obviously has more partners/senior associates, but I'd imagine you'd be competing with a greater pool of people for promotions?

International Secondments

I'd assume that BM has far greater opportunity for international secondments, given it has 77 offices? Saying that, I've remember reading somewhere that 1/3 of Ashurst trainees go on international secondment.

Remuneration

BM offers an NQ salary of £140,000, and Ashurst £125,000. I was curious if anyone knew what further salary progression/bonuses look like at either of the firms? If you start on a higher NQ salary, I'd imagine this is reflected in associate pay too? I've heard salary bunching is quite common at the associate level, so wanted to check for this.

Do let me know if i've missed any key points, and thanks in advance for any insights — looking forward to hearing what you all think!

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi everyone!

This is my first post here so apologies if I've put it in the wrong place. I’m currently weighing offers from both Ashurst and Baker McKenzie ('BM'), and I’d really appreciate any insight/advice from those who have experience with either (or both!) firms. I know I’m incredibly lucky to be in this position and I'm grateful to even have a choice, but now I'm here I'm struggling to decide.

I've put together a rough comparison list, and would be extremely appreciative if anyone could weigh in on any of these areas:

Type and Calibre of Work

My understanding of BM is that its work is mostly multi-jurisdictional, being a global firm operating in 46 countries. Meanwhile, my understanding of Ashurst is that it's much more UK-focused, sitting on the UK government's legal panel for example. Is there a perception that one or the other is more 'prestigious' (i.e. would I be wrong to think that Ashurst would be better known in London, but BM better known globally? And would this have any impact on future career progression i.e. lateralling down the line?).

Training

Both firms take between 30-40 trainees. BM requires you take a transactional and contentious seat, whilst Ashurst requires a transactional seat and a seat in Banking & Finance/Capital Markets. Does anyone have any further insights into the training I could expect at these firms? I don’t know where I want to qualify yet, so specific strength in practice areas is unlikely to hugely impact my decision.

Work/Life Balance

BM has 25 days annual leave and target hours of 1700, whilst Ashurst has 27 days leave and a target of 1600. However, I've heard anecdotally that 'silver circle' firms essentially work 'magic circle' hours, so I'm struggling to compare the two here.

Culture

I've met people from both firms, and they all seem lovely! This makes it hard to differentiate here.

Career Progression

Does anyone have any insight into what career progression looks like at these firms? As the larger firm BM obviously has more partners/senior associates, but I'd imagine you'd be competing with a greater pool of people for promotions?

International Secondments

I'd assume that BM has far greater opportunity for international secondments, given it has 77 offices? Saying that, I've remember reading somewhere that 1/3 of Ashurst trainees go on international secondment.

Remuneration

BM offers an NQ salary of £140,000, and Ashurst £125,000. I was curious if anyone knew what further salary progression/bonuses look like at either of the firms? If you start on a higher NQ salary, I'd imagine this is reflected in associate pay too? I've heard salary bunching is quite common at the associate level, so wanted to check for this.

Do let me know if i've missed any key points, and thanks in advance for any insights — looking forward to hearing what you all think!

Hi @Jane101 and first of all huge congrats on your offers, this is an amazing achievement. Both Baker McKenzie and Ashurst are great firms and I do not think you can go wrong with either. Having been in a similar position to you last cycle, my advice would thus be to take it seriously but also try not to stress too much about the decision.

That said, I will give you my thoughts on some of the points of comparison you have mentioned:

• General reputation and type of work: I think you would be right to assume Ashurst is the more prestigious name in London and Baker McKenzie is the more well-known firm globally. Baker McKenzie is also more know for being a very generalist firm, whereas Ashurst, while still full service, has a few areas of focus, like finance, real estate, and energy/projects. For purposes of lateraling Ashurst probably has the slightly better reputation for quality of training, but the impact will not be major. What will likely matter more is the comparative reputation of the particular practice area you qualify in,
• International secondments: while the number of international offices matters, firm policy is sometimes more determinative of your chances of getting one. Based on Legal Cheek statistics your odds would be slightly better at Ashurst (30% vs 24% at Baker Mckenzie did a secondment).
• W/L balance: generally hours will probably be somewhat better than at MC/US firms, but beyond that it will likely depend more on practice area selection rather than firm selection.
• Renumeration: Salary brunching has indeed been quite common ever since the US firms have started the pay wars - I would assume both Baker and Ashurst to be affected by it. Since their starting point is higher, I expect the rest of Baker's salary scale to be above Ashurst's as well.