Should I renege on a 2022 TC offer to train at a better firm in 2024?

[Sarai]

I am a graduate who has been waiting some years to start their legal career. I now have an offer to start this year however a much better firm has offered me a 2024 intake? The 2024 intake would mean that I wouldn't be earning any money whilst studying the SQE and after working for a few years I'm not sure I can go back to being a broke student. I also think I wouldn't want to stay in a market leading city firm long firm because of the awful work life balance.

 

[Lisa Lowe]

Congrats on the two offers!!

I’m guessing it depends what you want out of your career and which option you think will get you there.

How different are the firms? Are you talking about a high street vs a MC?

Do both firms offer you the seats you want etc

Then I would think about the finances, the ‘better’ firm may be offering you a higher salary, but you’ll have to wait longer to get that salary and take a year out and it seems you don’t want to stay there that long (so may not recoup the financial benefits of waiting for the ‘better’ firm).

Could you ask the ‘better’ firm if they can put you in an earlier intake (using the other offer as leverage)?

Another option could be to do the SQE exams part-time over two years, as oppose to taking a year out?

 

[Sarai]

Thanks. They're both city firms but the 2024 one is a really big well known firm.

They both offer the seats I want.

That's a good point you mentioned about not being their long enough to recoup the salary.

I wouldn't mind that but I think the 2024 offer wants me to do 1 year SQE.

 

[Lisa Lowe]

Thanks. They're both city firms but the 2024 one is a really big well known firm.

They both offer the seats I want.

That's a good point you mentioned about not being their long enough to recoup the salary.

I wouldn't mind that but I think the 2024 offer wants me to do 1 year SQE.

Yes - the two firms will offer you different opportunities, open different doors and offer different salaries. It may be useful to think about where you want to be in the next 5/8 years and which firm you think you will help you get there, you could also compare the salaries both firms will offer you over the next 5/8 years (taking into account your current salary when working out projections for the 'better' firm).

Often firms will allow you to join an earlier intake or do the LPC/SQE outside of London/part-time, if you have a good reason and speak to the right people in grad rec about your circumstances.

For example, I was able to join an earlier intake and sat the LPC at a slightly different time to the rest of my cohort. The 'better' firm may be more flexible knowing you have another offer (you're 'in-demand').

Others on here will have more experiences of negotiating with grad rec (my convo was really easy). But there is no harm in having these conversations with the 'better firm', especially if they are one of the bigger firms (e.g. it only takes one person in an earlier intake to drop-out/want to defer and a place could be available for you).

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

I am a graduate who has been waiting some years to start their legal career. I now have an offer to start this year however a much better firm has offered me a 2024 intake? The 2024 intake would mean that I wouldn't be earning any money whilst studying the SQE and after working for a few years I'm not sure I can go back to being a broke student. I also think I wouldn't want to stay in a market leading city firm long firm because of the awful work life balance.

The way I read this, it sounds like the "better firm" is only better because of prestige. Is it what you think is truly better for you or what external people might consider the better brand name?

 

[Sarai]

The way I read this, it sounds like the "better firm" is only better because of prestige. Is it what you think is truly better for you or what external people might consider the better brand name?

It definitely is only better because of prestige. I think I would much prefer a long term career at the firm with the 2022 offer. Law is pretty elitist so I don't want people to look down on me because of where I trained.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

It definitely is only better because of prestige. I think I would much prefer a long term career at the firm with the 2022 offer. Law is pretty elitist so I don't want people to look down on me because of where I trained.

This is where I am going to sound really blunt, but don’t waste your life trying to impress other people.

This is where so many people go wrong with their legal careers. I have seen too many people make too many mistakes purely for this reason.

You should do what you want in life, not what you think other people would expect you to do because of some general perception on brand/prestige.

Working in law is a challenging career no matter where you go. Do you really want to risk you satisfaction on a day to day basis due to your work and environment just because how others perceive your employer (that’s not even how they perceive you!)?

If the only thing that makes the “better” firm is prestige, then I truly don’t think they are the better firm for you. And that is what’s really important - finding the better firm for you, not who a broad sweeping survey of students/lawyers think would be better just because of their perceptions of an employer brand.

 

[AvniD]

It definitely is only better because of prestige. I think I would much prefer a long term career at the firm with the 2022 offer. Law is pretty elitist so I don't want people to look down on me because of where I trained.

I can understand the confusion over picking between firms that have immense recognition, brand value and rankings and those that don’t have any of this to the same extent. It seems like you’re pretty keen on starting training in 2022, so I think the choice is clear. Taking a firm with lesser (perceived) prestige may require you to work slightly harder to show people why you’re good because it won’t be as easily assumed. But as Jessica said, this is not a worthy reason to base career choices on because it ignores what drives your satisfaction and goals.

 

[Sarai]

This is where I am going to sound really blunt, but don’t waste your life trying to impress other people.

This is where so many people go wrong with their legal careers. I have seen too many people make too many mistakes purely for this reason.

You should do what you want in life, not what you think other people would expect you to do because of some general perception on brand/prestige.

Working in law is a challenging career no matter where you go. Do you really want to risk you satisfaction on a day to day basis due to your work and environment just because how others perceive your employer (that’s not even how they perceive you!)?

If the only thing that makes the “better” firm is prestige, then I truly don’t think they are the better firm for you. And that is what’s really important - finding the better firm for you, not who a broad sweeping survey of students/lawyers think would be better just because of their perceptions of an employer brand.

This is really helpful thanks

 

[Sarai]

I can understand the confusion over picking between firms that have immense recognition, brand value and rankings and those that don’t have any of this to the same extent. It seems like you’re pretty keen on starting training in 2022, so I think the choice is clear. Taking a firm with lesser (perceived) prestige may require you to work slightly harder to show people why you’re good because it won’t be as easily assumed. But as Jessica said, this is not a worthy reason to base career choices on because it ignores what drives your satisfaction and goals.

Thank you