TCLA Premium: Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andrei Radu" data-source="post: 228085" data-attributes="member: 36777">Just to add a couple of points from my own experience and observations to the great analysis form [USER=42700]@Prudentia[/USER]:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Generally, I have indeed been told that the trainee experience at a top US firm tends to be more intense and stressful than at MC firms. Firstly, this is because trainees at US firms are expected to learn by doing - and doing client work a is at first always an anxiety-inducing experience; secondly, this is because they can also often be given more responsibility early on (although this also depends on business need and how well the trainee is progressing) - which once again raises the stakes in terms of cost of error. That said, the upside is (i) comparatively getting to work on "interesting" tasks more often; and (ii) a smoother transition to NQ - while the trainee years do seem to be a baptism of fire at many US firms, I hear the first year after qualification tends to be the same for trainees at MC firms as a result of a substantially more "sudden" increase in responsibility. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I also agree with the statement that, overall, the top US firms tend to have a somewhat more competitive internal culture and that they also tend to have somewhat higher expectations vis-a-vis long hours and general availability. Nonetheless, I want to point out two caveats. Firstly, in my opinion, the perception of US firms in general tends to be a bit skewed by the huge impact of a couple of big firms - and in particular, Kirkland & Ellis and one or two other very successful private equity-focused firms. Since then are the biggest and most influential US firms in the London market, it makes sense the way people view US firms in general is hugely influenced by what they do. Nonetheless, it seems to me that outside of a couple of firms in this group, it is a lot more difficult to justify the claim that US firms have a more competitive and demanding culture than MC firms. In terms of hours, although you should definitely not assume these surveys are extremely reliable, looking at the Legal Cheek Most List provides some evidence to the effect that there are many US shops with lower averages than the MC firms. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Secondly, I want to emphasise that the differences between hours and culture may not be as larger as you may think - particularly nowadays when the MC firms are pursuing US growth very aggressively, and apparently even want to leave the Magic Circle label behind to instead be classified as part of the US-dominated "Global Elite" group. To grow in this manner requires them to be increasingly more competitive in profitability for partners and salaries for associates (which is often difficult to offer without an associated increased demand for work availability) and also requires them to compete in terms of winning high end transactional mandates (which once again tends to be associate with more of an "always on" expectation and a worse overall W/L balance). While they may not be quite the same as US firms yet, many people in the legal press comment that we are observing a phenomenon of "Americanisation" of the top UK firms. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Finally, it often makes more sense to consider and compare the culture and work at different firms on a department-specific rather than firm wide level. Firstly, this is because it is often difficult to talk of a "firm-wide" culture when there is an office with 500+ lawyers - work quality, availability expectations, quality of training and interpersonal dynamics will differ hugely between departments. Secondly, because there are often more commonalities between the work and culture of the same practice areas at different firms rather than between the work and culture of the different practice areas in the same firm. From my understanding, a tax lawyer at Latham will have a lot more in common with a tax lawyer at Freshfields in terms of work and availability expectations than will a Freshfields tax lawyer have in common with a Freshfields M&A lawyer. </li> </ul>All this is to say, while I agree that there are some broad general differences between the TC experience at your average US firm and the TC experience at your average MC firm, and while I certainly think that you should take such costs and benefits into account when deciding where to apply, I would argue differences can sometimes be overemphasised. Thus, my advice is to judge whether you should apply to a given US firm on a case-by-case basis and not base your view on a very strict generalisation.</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread