[tdkr]

(Original post by Brevity)
You've quoted a sentence fragment of mine, but I'll assume you want to know what US firms pay; at NQ, Bingham pays £100,000, Sullcrom 97,500, Kirkland / Weil 97,000, Latham 96,700, Cleary 95,000, Skadden Arps / Debevoise 94,000 (these are the highest paying US firms in the City, although others (Shearman, Paul Hastings, Covington, Sidley Austin, etc.) also pay substantially more than the MC).

i heard that you can't become partner at a US firm ? and if job cuts are sought after then most of those cuts would be at say London rather than in Chicago...? (i maybe wrong but that's what i've heard)

[Cinnamon_Twist]

(Original post by Brevity)
You've quoted a sentence fragment of mine, but I'll assume you want to know what US firms pay; at NQ, Bingham pays £100,000, Sullcrom 97,500, Kirkland / Weil 97,000, Latham 96,700, Cleary 95,000, Skadden Arps / Debevoise 94,000 (these are the highest paying US firms in the City, although others (Shearman, Paul Hastings, Covington, Sidley Austin, etc.) also pay substantially more than the MC).

I wasn't challenging you- I was geniunely curious! It does seem strange that noone seems to ever mention these, instead chasing MC firms. Do you by any chance know starting salaries? I searched for a website(s) but nada.

[Redeyejedi]

(Original post by tdkr)
i heard that you can't become partner at a US firm ? and if job cuts are sought after then most of those cuts would be at say London rather than in Chicago...? (i maybe wrong but that's what i've heard)

The idea that you couldn't become a partner in a US firm was probably quiet true ten or so years ago. Now that the London offices of these firms are amongst the largest in their global networks (certainly the case for Skadden, Lathams or Kirkland) this is no longer the case. To put it bluntly, partnership prospects are generally piss poor anywhere in the MC, SC and US firms. I'd be astonished if more than maybe 5% of any one trainee/associate intake actually made it to partner.

As to your point on job security - they are far more likely to cut from the mothership (i.e.) Chicago or New York, because there are simply more bodies and more fat to cut. The London offices of good US firms are generally much leaner, with far higher RPL and PEP.

Note: I'm not blindly defending the US associate / trainee experience. Like most things it has it's positives but also some very real drawbacks. Some people like and consequently thrive in the US firm environment. Others hate it. Each to their own.

[jjarvis]

(Original post by Redeyejedi)
The idea that you couldn't become a partner in a US firm was probably quiet true ten or so years ago. Now that the London offices of these firms are amongst the largest in their global networks (certainly the case for Skadden, Lathams or Kirkland) this is no longer the case. To put it bluntly, partnership prospects are generally piss poor anywhere in the MC, SC and US firms. I'd be astonished if more than maybe 5% of any one trainee/associate intake actually made it to partner.

As to your point on job security - they are far more likely to cut from the mothership (i.e.) Chicago or New York, because there are simply more bodies and more fat to cut. The London offices of good US firms are generally much leaner, with far higher RPL and PEP.

Note: I'm not blindly defending the US associate / trainee experience. Like most things it has it's positives but also some very real drawbacks. Some people like and consequently thrive in the US firm environment. Others hate it. Each to their own.

Hey there, haven't seen you round in a while. Where are you training? How are you finding it?

[Wildcard]

(Original post by tdkr)
thanks for the feedback, but a MCs' salaries and benefits are miles ahead !

As has been pointed out to you, this is incorrect. I have friends at MC firms, I have friends at SC / mid-tier firms, and their salaries and benefits are very similar, even at - say - 3 years post-qualification. The big differences tend to emerge at salaried / equity partner level, but even here some non-MC firms can give the MC a run for their money (but only a few)

I really wouldn't base your choice solely on the expectation of a higher salary - chances are, you won't make partner anyway (no judgement on you, the statistics just aren't reassuring), so other factors should take precedence: the firm's culture, training contract opportunities, foreign offices if that appeals to you, etc.

[jjarvis]

(Original post by Wildcard)
As has been pointed out to you, this is incorrect. I have friends at MC firms, I have friends at SC / mid-tier firms, and their salaries and benefits are very similar, even at - say - 3 years post-qualification. The big differences tend to emerge at salaried / equity partner level, but even here some non-MC firms can give the MC a run for their money (but only a few)

I really wouldn't base your choice solely on the expectation of a higher salary - chances are, you won't make partner anyway (no judgement on you, the statistics just aren't reassuring), so other factors should take precedence: the firm's culture, training contract opportunities, foreign offices if that appeals to you, etc.

This is absolutely right. And, with the possible exception of Slaughter and May, it's sometimes possible to shift into a MC firm if you're really desperate for the higher remuneration potential of salaried/equity partners or consultants.

[tdkr]

(Original post by jjarvis)
This is absolutely right. And, with the possible exception of Slaughter and May, it's sometimes possible to shift into a MC firm if you're really desperate for the higher remuneration potential of salaried/equity partners or consultants.

exception ?

[jjarvis]

(Original post by tdkr)
exception ?

Slaughter and May have never made a lateral hire of a partner, and rarely hire associates trained at other firms.