Please can some1 explain the differences between uk and American firm, I have a few ACs coming up and am worried they may ask this
Hiya
@g.cl.2020344
I'm sure the other community assistants would have much more to add here
@Andrei Radu and
@Amma Usman, but generally I've found that candidates who discuss this question typically draw attention to some of the following points. I've tried to set them out below with some research and I hope this is helpful to you.
1. Market Growth and Client Base: Not too long ago, US firms in London were mostly there to support US-based clients expanding into Europe. But over the last 10-15 years, their strategy has shifted completely. Instead of just following their US clients, they’re now competing head-on with UK firms for the most profitable, high-end legal work. The impact on UK firms is undeniable. Some, such as
A&O Shearman, have responded with mergers, allowing them to better compete with the US powerhouses. Others are increasing salaries or trying to retain talent with alternative benefits. It's likely this trend of US firms increasing their market share will continue, particularly as private equity and private capital-driven deals drive further growth.
2. Revenue and Profitability: These are the metrics that are very often mentioned when comparing US and UK firms. Many US firms operate on a higher profit-per-equity-partner (PEP) model, frequently exceeding £2 million per partner, whereas UK firms tend to distribute profits more evenly across a larger partnership. This profitability edge comes from their leaner team structures, premium billing rates, and focus on higher value transactions and disputes.
The Lawyer has also done some work mapping US firms' revenue growth over the last decade, and I think it's worth noting this here. They mentioned that, since 2014,
Kirkland & Ellis has increased its UK revenue by 366%, from £175m to £815m in 2023, and even that a more specialist litigation focussed firm such as Quinn Emanuel have seen its UK revenue soar by 467.5%, from £43.1m to £244.6m. Here are some other firms whose significant revenue growth they also covered:
This level of revenue expansion is more difficult to come across among UK firms, which, despite their dominance in market share, have struggled to match the profitability per lawyer that US firms achieve.
3. Global Footprints: Another large but often overlooked difference is that UK firms tend to have a much larger global presence than most US firms. The Magic Circle (
Clifford Chance,
Linklaters,
Freshfields, etc.) and other top UK firms have extensive international networks across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, reflecting their long-standing client bases in those regions. By contrast, many US firms are more concentrated in key financial centres like New York, London, and Hong Kong. Their model is less about global coverage and more about cementing their presence in high-value markets.
4. Practice Area Focus: Another one of the most defining differences is practice area focus. UK firms tend to offer full-service legal support, covering areas such as corporate law, public law, employment, and real estate. US firms, by contrast, are often highly specialist, focusing almost exclusively on private equity, leveraged finance, capital markets, restructuring, high-end disputes, and regulatory enforcement. This is partly what has allowed many US firms to maximise profitability per matter rather than spreading resources across a broad range of mid-market work. As a result, they have overtaken UK firms in legal rankings in premium transactional and contentious practice areas, displacing traditional UK firms that led rankings in these areas.
5. Pay and Work Culture: Another consequence of US firms’ rise in London has been the escalation of associate salaries, which has had a cascading effect on the entire legal profession in the UK. Lateral hires from UK firms to US firms have surged, with US firms poaching top talent by offering significantly higher salaries and a faster route to partnership. You've also likely heard that US firms tend to have smaller teams, which means more responsibility early on but also longer hours and higher expectations. Many UK firms, by contrast, often have larger teams, and for this reason there's a tendency to assume that they have more structured, predictable work environment.
6. Training and Career Progression: UK firms typically invest in structured training programmes, offering extensive formal training, secondments, and a lockstep career progression model. In contrast, many US firms have a more hands on and practical approach to training, where trainees and junior associates are expected to learn through direct involvement in high-value matters rather than classroom training. This means that while associates at US firms may receive less formal training, they often gain more hands-on experience at an earlier stage, particularly in complex transactions and disputes.
These are just a few points to bear in mind and I think there's much more that can be said of each, but I hope this is helpful to you.
