How hard is it to move from a Magic Circle to a US Firm post-qualification?

Fortunately, I am in a position where I have received offers from a magic circle firm with a strong finance practice (Think CC/A&O) together with an offer from a leading US law firm (think Latham/White & Case/Weil). Having previously interned at the US firm, I really enjoyed the culture/atmosphere as well as the early responsibility and small intake. However, I find it very difficult to realistically reject a magic circle firm, given their reputation, and supposedly better training and exit opportunities. Several people that I have asked have said that the Magic Circle firm would be better since you could always train there, then move to a US firm upon qualification.

However, how easy/difficult would it be in practice to make such a move? and would you choose a US firm over a magic circle firm?

It depends. Latham or Weil, maybe. White & Case isn't in the same league as the other two. It depends what kind of exit opps you're talking about. If you're talking about an in-house role at somewhere like Goldman, being ex MC or ex Latham will make no difference.

No one knows what the market will be like for NQs in five years time, but at the moment US firms are actively recruiting at the junior level. The MC is a good place to train, if you're not sure where you'd like to qualify and are keen to experience a broad range of practice areas.

If you want to do PE/M&A long term, then Weil/Latham are just as good, if not better than CC/A&O. Latham has been raiding the PE practice at CC for the last few years. If you think you may want to eventually move into PE but on the other side, Weil/Kirkland is a very good bet. CC's rep is probably just below that of A&O/Links/Freshfields, but that is nit-picking.

Myself and many friends have had to make similar decisions, and it boils down to personal preference. In your case, I'd say why join a firm, with one eye on the exit, when you could start at the firm where you see yourself long-term.

You're right about what you said about the NQ market being uncertain in 4 years time. That's why I'm leaning more towards a Magic Circle training contract, but the only issue is, as of yet, I don't see myself staying at a magic circle firm in the long term but I understand that their reputation could allow me to move on to US firms upon qualification. The only issue is how hard is this move going to be in practice. I understand that several magic circle partners have been poached by the big US firms but how often are NQs poached also?


Posted from TSR Mobile

NQs aren't poached since the US firms won't actively go after an individual at that stage but many move at NQ stage to US law firms from magic circle law firms by going through the usual interview process.

US firms don't train as many trainees so they fill in the gaps at lower levels by recruiting external associates and the most often choice will be magic circle law firms (since they will typically have the best grades/CVs).

If you're set on moving at NQ stage, surely it's more beneficial to go to a US law firm now and that way you have two years of familiarity with the firm over when you'd join at NQ stage? You'd also have seen different departments so you'd have better links within the firm then trying to join later on.

At NQ stage, I don't think there are any difference on exit options between US/magic circle frankly. What have you really learned? You haven't even started to specialise at that point. If you're talking around the 5+ PQE year mark, I can see where being at a magic circle law firm could have slightly better choices on an exit.

Also if money is a factor, you'll earn more during the first two years at a US law firm too.

How competitive would you imagine the process would be to make such a move upon qualification? I feel like I may be limiting my future options by choosing to train at a US firm as opposed to a magic circle and I think it makes sense to stay put, wait for four years until when I'm about to qualify then see which US firm would be strongest in the practice areas that I would then be interested in, then make a move. Strategically, it seems to be best route, but I would imagine that executing it may be a bit more difficult.

NQs aren't poached since the US firms won't actively go after an individual at that stage but many move at NQ stage to US law firms from magic circle law firms by going through the usual interview process.

US firms don't train as many trainees so they fill in the gaps at lower levels by recruiting external associates and the most often choice will be magic circle law firms (since they will typically have the best grades/CVs).

If you're set on moving at NQ stage, surely it's more beneficial to go to a US law firm now and that way you have two years of familiarity with the firm over when you'd join at NQ stage? You'd also have seen different departments so you'd have better links within the firm then trying to join later on.

At NQ stage, I don't think there are any difference on exit options between US/magic circle frankly. What have you really learned? You haven't even started to specialise at that point. If you're talking around the 5+ PQE year mark, I can see where being at a magic circle law firm could have slightly better choices on an exit.

Also if money is a factor, you'll earn more during the first two years at a US law firm too.

There are big differences in exit opportunities. Ask any NQ, or 3PQE in London. MC is still seen as THE gold standard. Ask any recruiter. That's not to say that US NQs aren't recruited. It's just that firms looking to recruit still tend to look to the best London firms first before looking at anyone else.

Bar Skadden and a couple of others very few US firms are significant in London or really compete with the MC. If you're unsure of where you want to qualify I'd go MC. They are top ranked in pretty much everything in London, unlike say White and Case.

Btw, people forget but there is a big difference between US firms. W&C (assuming that is the firm you're talking about) is no top 5 US firm. It does mid-market deals.

It's no Simpson Thacher, Sullivan and Cromwell, Davis Polk, Skadden, Cravath. These firms are the US equivalent of the Magic Circle. Quite a big rep gap between them and the MC (including CC).

Yes but this falls within pros/cons and exit for MC/US in a general career. The OP seems to be saying that he wants to work at a US law firm in the future but he just happens to have MC offers too.

True, although I've got a MC offer, I have not had the opportunity to intern at a Magic Circle firm so I am a bit uncertain at the moment as to whether I could see myself staying there in the long term, but that could change. The quality of work, training, prestige, facilities and apparent exit OPs available at the magic circle firm make it seem very compelling relative to the US firm, which I would admit is not the most prestigious, despite being very high-paying.

True, although I've got a MC offer, I have not had the opportunity to intern at a Magic Circle firm so I am a bit uncertain at the moment as to whether I could see myself staying there in the long term, but that could change. The quality of work, training, prestige, facilities and apparent exit OPs available at the magic circle firm make it seem very compelling relative to the US firm, which I would admit is not the most prestigious, despite being very high-paying.

There are big differences in exit opportunities. Ask any NQ, or 3PQE in London. MC is still seen as THE gold standard. Ask any recruiter. That's not to say that US NQs aren't recruited. It's just that firms looking to recruit still tend to look to the best London firms first before looking at anyone else.
.

What 'kind of firms' are you talking about? If you're US NQ, you probably wouldn't move to a UK firm anyway. US firms like Simpson who recruit at the junior associate stage recruit heavily from other US firms. Not sure what 'other firms you could be referring to.

The exit-opportunities is an interesting point. It's not like finance, where people move elsewhere for more lucrative pay/work. Exit opps in law often mean making a sideway/downwards shift, and how much value does the MC name over the US add in that regard?

OP, it seems like you're talking about White & Case, if so, it would be pretty rogue to turn down one of the MC for it.

Millie the likes of Simpson Thacher look to the MC. Look at associates on LinkedIn if you don't believe me. Most have been recruited from the likes of Freshfields. They're not all W&C associates.
As I said I think the OP should go with his or her gut after visiting the firms.

But there is a huge rep gap between the likes of Simpson - which is the U.S MC equivalent - and the likes of White and Case. Hardly 'rogue' to turn them down for likes of the MC.

I had a quick look, and there are also people at Simpson from Mayer Brown, KWM, NRF, Eversheds and DLA Piper. Common sense would suggest that more MC lawyers will be looking at a move to somewhere like Simpson than people from places like Latham, Weil or Kirkland. The leaner deal teams, and higher pay which prompts many MC moves just doesn't apply to those already at US firms.

I agree - hence why I said it would be rogue to turn down the MC for W&C, you may have mis-read what I said?

Out of interest, who else are you considering to be in the same company as Simpson?

Apologies for the misread. I agree it wouldn't be that logical to turn down the MC for W&C.
I do maintain that recruiters are always most interested in the MC associates. Used to be MC then SC. Now MC, American then SC. Simply because the best work in London remains with those firms. In corporate: Freshfields, Slaughters and Linklaters for instance are usually 1st, 2nd and 3rd by m&a value in the UK.

No hard and fast list. Obviously firms like Latham have made great strides but the traditional New York elite would be Sullivan and Cromwell (best corporate practice in America), Skadden, Simpson, Davis Polk and Cravath.
Add to that Wachtell and Cleary. Both are new firms ie not old Wall St elite but undeniably utterly top tier.

It's no mistake that if you practice at these firms they only recognise training at what they consider equal firms. A guy I know qualified at Herbies and moved to Simpson in New York after passing the NY bar. They started him off as a totally baby associate and didn't give him credit for any of his training at all. He said they only recognise training at 'peer firms' - the Magic Circle in London.

I would agree that Freshfields, Slaughters and Links are the best corporate powerhouses out there. I would say that there are discrepancies even in the MC, regarding external reputation. I think the biggest benefit of training at one of the MC is that they excel in corporate work, but also excel in the more contentious work. At this point, most people have no idea, where they will qualify, so for most people, keeping their options open is wise. You get the few people knowing that they want to do private equity long-term, and in those cases, choosing a US firm may well be the better fit.

Not sure that W&C is even as well regarded as HSF or Hogan Lovells, so I don't know if their recent NQ pay hike would be enough to make people choose it over the MC firms. Having said that, I'm guessing OP would not even be considering W&C, if they hadn't moved to US rates, so it seems to be having some impact.

It is also fair to say that the Magic Circle are probably the best bet for those who are unsure about whether they are in City law long term./staying in London etc.

Interesting point about the Herbies guy.

Good point re training. Absolutely. The whole legalweek 'inner MC' thing is sort of true. The oldest firms particularly Freshies, Links and S&M have always been oddly snobby about CC and to a lesser extent A&O.

To be honest I thought it was a bit messed up. Herbies is a good shop. But apparently you only get credit from the 'absolutely top tier' firms if you worked at an equivalent firm.