- Sep 7, 2024
- 851
- 1,014
I think it really comes down to weighing your priorities and considering which firm is the better fit for you long-term. Have you taken the time to compare both firms in terms of culture, practice areas, training opportunities, and overall career trajectory?
Some things to consider include:
- Long-term career prospects - Which firm aligns more closely with your career goals? Consider factors like practice area strengths, international opportunities, and secondment options.
- Training and development - How structured and comprehensive is the training at each firm? Look at feedback from current trainees, the level of responsibility given early on, and the support available.
- Firm culture and working environment - Have you spoken to trainees or associates at both firms? Understanding the work culture, team dynamics, and overall firm ethos could be crucial in making your decision.
- Retention rates and progression - What percentage of trainees stay on as associates? I would not look at these figures so closely though, as they may change every year and for various factors beyond the nature of the firm itself.
- Reputation and deal flow - Consider the firm’s standing in the market and the type of work you’d be exposed to. Are they industry leaders in your areas of interest?
- Personal preference and gut feeling - Beyond the tangible factors, which firm excites you more? Where do you see yourself thriving?
Going ahead with the AC ultimately depends on which opportunity matters more to you. Have you also considered the possibility of later reaching out to either firm to see if they’d allow you to defer to another scheme? If this is something that is possible, you should aim to recommend deferring to a scheme within this cycle though, as deferring to future cycles is less common among firms. I have tagged @Jessica Booker here as I’m sure she’ll have more thoughts.
Last edited:
