Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>

Linklaters vs. Freshfields

m.smith1991

Hi everyone.

I have been lucky enough to receive offers of vacation schemes at both Linklaters and Freshfields. Unfortunately, as I am away for much of the summer, I am only able to complete one scheme and therefore have to choose between the two.

I was wondering if anybody could provide an insight into which firm is better. I'm not entirely sure which department I want to qualify into so am looking for the more well-rounded of the two. I've heard a lot from the Linklaters grad recruitment team that they are the most well-rounded of the magic circle firms but I was wondering whether this is really the case or just advertising-speak? Also, as it will be a few years before I actually begin my training contract, I was wondering which firm has the best strategy and will be the leading firm in say 5 years time? Finally, does anybody know about how the cultures of the firm compare/how nice a place they are to work?

If anybody has experience of both or just one of the firms then any insights would be greatly appreciated, as well as any more general opinions on the firms. Thanks very much.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

suffocation1992

They are both fantastic firms so a huge well done to you on your efforts. I'll leave my own opinions aside and wait for some other members to contribute here, especially current trainees.

What I would consider when making a decision are perhaps retention rates. Yes, they do seem to be a random from what I've seen in the legal press today anyway, and after training at either firm your opportunities to move laterally PQ are the strongest, so ask yourself whether you see your long term future at which firm.

Reply 2

Brevity

I think Link grad. rec. are right when they say it's the most rounded firm. It's the only firm equally strong in finance and M&A (whereas Freshfields and Slaughter are corporate shops, A&O and CC are finance shops). I think if you thought finance was something you wanted to qualify in, Links will have a broader scope than FBD (structured products, asset finance, syndicated lending, capital markets, &c.). I think you'd choose Freshfields if you definitely wanted to do mergers (and maybe there's a perception that it's a bit more old-school than Links, with definitely nicer offices).

Ultimately though, I'd say they're more similar than different--I doubt anything about your career would hinge on it.

Reply 3

The West Wing

Freshfields is much bigger and better for litigation than Linklaters.

Reply 4

jjarvis

Original post by m.smith1991

How did you feel about each firm? I did tc interviews at both, and the firms felt very different. The work and clients are similar, but the feel isn't. I'd choose on that basis. Links probably advises more banks than ff. The comments on corporate, finance, and litigation are accurate. But there's no predicting where you'd sit on a vac scheme and you won't do real work there anyway.

If you get multiple MC vac schemes, you'll probably have multiple tc offers. Taking one shouldn't foreclose the other.

(For what it's worth, I think links offices are much nicer.)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

emmings

Whichever one you choose, it's probably worth asking the one you turn down if there would be any possibility of you doing it at an alternative time e.g. Easter or Christmas. Firms can be quite accommodating sometimes for people they like.

Reply 6

jacketpotato

I am inclined towards Freshfields. It is just more balanced than Links with better corporate/litigation teams. Links is one of the big finance firms and is known for being a bit finance-heavy, if you love finance thats great but personally I think its a bit dull. I've heard good things about Freshies and it came higher than Links in the recent rollonfriday survey of associate satisfaction.

That said I did not do a VS at either firm. Do check the extent to which each firm recruits from its vac scheme. If one firm heavily relies on its vac scheme to recruit and the other doesn't, that would be a good reason for choosing the firm which relies on its vac scheme.

As emmings said, it is worth asking if grad recruitment can reschedule if this is realistic. They may well be able to arrange a swap with someone on another scheme.

Reply 7

m.smith1991

Thanks very much for your help everybody. Any other thoughts would still be much appreciated but everything so far has been extremely useful.

Reply 8

eve_22

Original post by jjarvis

How did you feel about each firm? I did tc interviews at both, and the firms felt very different. The work and clients are similar, but the feel isn't. I'd choose on that basis.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What jjarvis said is right. I did a vac scheme at Links and chose to go to Freshfields after interviewing for TC. It's a personal choice.

You will have a great experience wherever you choose to go, though.

Reply 9

jacktc890

Original post by eve_22

I have just faced the same choice in this TC round and I chose Freshfields. My reasons where because it's incredibly strong in M&A (as is Links) but out of the MC Freshfields is often the leading firm by M&A value in the UK/Europe. They're also the only Bank 1 MC firm for litigation and competition in Chambers both of which I love the idea of doing seats in as well as M&A..... and I also loved the fact that they've advised the Bank of England continuously for 270 odd years! Very hard choice though.

Reply 10

happyinthehaze

I haven't a clue what I'm talking about here having no VS and either of these but I have been let loose inside Linklaters and it was a very impressive set up. It's like a small city in there, beautiful offices, art everywhere and they have VERY nice biscuits. The people I met from Linklaters were very nice although all lawyers I meet are nice.

Yeh. So that helped you right? Rep me :smile:

Original post by m.smith1991

Reply 11

jacktc890

Original post by happyinthehaze

Yeah they have lovely offices but I'd say all the 4 MC have great offices really.

Reply 12

jpearson

Original post by jacktc890

Yeah they have lovely offices but I'd say all the 4 MC have great offices really.

You mean all 5 of the MC... right?

Reply 13

hp112

Original post by jpearson

You mean all 5 of the MC... right?

Some people think MC is 5 firms other say 4. The Lawyer for instance who first used the term says there are 4 MC firms i.e. the one's with an international presence. Depends on which view you take.

Reply 14

jpearson

Original post by hp112

Some people think MC is 5 firms other say 4. The Lawyer for instance who first used the term says there are 4 MC firms i.e. the one's with an international presence. Depends on which view you take.

I think it's been generally accepted that there are 5 MC firms. There's actually no agreement regarding who first coined the term - most people like to attribute it to The Lawyer because they coined 'SC' in 2005.

Also, I doubt The Lawyer would have ever excluded Slaughters from the MC especially considering they have the highest PEP of all UK firms in the City (though since they do have offices outside the UK, it's arguable that they have at least some international presence).

Reply 15

TurboCretin

Original post by hp112

Some people think MC is 5 firms other say 4. The Lawyer for instance who first used the term says there are 4 MC firms i.e. the one's with an international presence. Depends on which view you take.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever deny (ever) that Slaughters is in the Magic Circle. Have you been speaking to people at HSF or something?

Reply 16

hp112

Original post by jpearson

The've excluded them from the MC for a few years now. But you're right there is a debate and there's no right or wrong answer.
http://www.thelawyer.com/analysis/2018-the-magic-circle-will-be-no-more/3008952.article

It's probably in part because they don't get the same exposure to top level instructions in Europe or have the same reputation internationally despite strength in the City. PEP is also a notoriously bad indication of a firms position as the figure can be easily manipulated. The Lawyer and LW tend to focus on profit margin now as its less easy for firms to disguise! http://www.thelawyer.com/analysis/dedicated-issue/uk-200-2014/uk-200-overview-combined-revenue-of-top-200-uk-firms-breaks-through-20bn/3027366.article

Reply 17

hp112

Original post by TurboCretin

I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever deny (ever) that Slaughters is in the Magic Circle. Have you been speaking to people at HSF or something?

Well for a while they did describe themselves as the 6th MC firm. In fact a lot of legal press exclude Slaughters now precisely because of the above. At the end of the say there's no right or wrong answer. To be honest, I'd imagine that with this new "international elite" tag the whole MC tag will disappear just as the Club of Nine did before it

Reply 18

TurboCretin

Original post by hp112

I hope so - the label's pretty arbitrary at this point anyway.

Reply 19

Alan Shore

From my experience, Linklaters is a much friendlier firm and has the better offices (and a stupidly good restaurant/canteen).

In terms of work, it is broadly similar, particularly in the corporate areas.

- Links is more well rounded and is better at banking/finance, capital markets work and work in Africa and Asia.
- Freshfields is probably the biggest firm for work in Europe, is better at litigation work, EU/Competition and PIL. Freshfields is also a bit bigger in the US.