Slaughters vs. Freshfields

I've been offered TCs for Slaughter and May and Freshfields and wanted some advice/information/anything on which to pick and why.

At the moment all I can really come up with is that I prefer Freshfields' offices! But the partners who interviewed me at Slaughters were nicer.

So, any help really appreciated!

I've been offered TCs for Slaughter and May and Freshfields and wanted some advice/information/anything on which to pick and why.

At the moment all I can really come up with is that I prefer Freshfields' offices! But the partners who interviewed me at Slaughters were nicer.

So, any help really appreciated!

Well done! You must be very pleased. Depending on when you were offered both, you should have 28 days - 1 month to make a decision. Both firms are very good at giving you space to decide rather than ringing you constantly. So there's no rush.

I did vac schemes and subsequently received TC offers from both. Yet I still had serious trouble deciding. I gathered a lot of information from people whose opinions I trusted (as J-SP will remember -- thanks again) only to decide my gut feeling was correct all along. I'm happy to chat via PM.

Don't let anyone influence your thoughts too much. Go back to both -- preferably on the same day. Interestingly, I found that the approach both firms took to their trainees in real life was accurately reflected in the wording of certain clauses in the offer letter and mock/draft training contract you get. There are a lot of standard terms (you can laugh at the 'your working hours are 9.30-5.30, but will occasionally work more than this' bit). But there are also important differences.

The most important factors to consider (in my opinion) are:

1. The structure of the TC and the variety of experiences you get before making your choice for qualification.
2. Culture.
3. How bothered or not you are about having more international opportunities.

Prestige, exit opportunities etc are all very similar. PEP is not, but that is extremely irrelevant to you as a trainee. The pay is also marginally different, but not big enough to make a decision on. I also wouldn't really worry about qualification. You have good chances either way and you can't predict what the market will be like when you are qualifying.

I've tried to leave my bias out of it. But I do actually have strong opinions on those three factors, which I can chat about via PM. Ultimately, it's a great position to be in. And, as I was once told, it's a much better choice than that between McDonalds and Burger King. Congrats again.

I went with Freshfields, and cancelled my SM interview after getting my Freshfields offer, having done a vac scheme at SM. Agree with the above. Go back to both and see which you prefer. They have different cultures and strengths.

Both are strong in corporate and along with Linklaters they're the very strongest deal firms in the UK. I cancelled my SM interview as I knew even if I was offered a TC I wouldn't accept it over FF. For me: the flexible training contract + their reputation as arguably the best deal firm Europe wide, made me go with Freshfields.

I should also point out that each of the three categories is not as simple as they may initially appear.

Take the point about the structure of the TC and variety of experiences. I don't think there's any need to be this clinical, but there are probably several points that could be made:

1. The amount of trainees in one department at a time tells you something about the spread of the firm.

2. If I remember correctly, there are six corporate sub-groups at Slaughters and four at Freshfields. Conversely, Freshfields has five Dispute Resolution sub-groups whereas Slaughters has one DR group.

3. Consider the multi-specialist training contract versus the eight (but probably six) seat approach.

4. At Freshfields, you can change your mind as you go along on your TC; at Slaughters you decide all your seats up front. One gives you certainty, but its rigidity can lead to disappointment if you change your mind. The other gives you flexibility, but you can also be disappointed -- there are a number of trainee preferences to juggle every 3 months and everyone can't get their first choice.

5. Slaughters requires you to sit in Corporate and Finance, which is 12 months of your TC (and many people will do one more seat in these areas). Freshfields has no requirements, but it will be a very rare trainee who doesn't spend time in one of those departments.

6. You will have more international and client secondment opportunities in your fourth seat at Freshfields. Spending your fourth seat at Slaughters, and the way they handle qualification, means you have more of a chance of qualifying into your fourth seat than you would elsewhere.

7. I know lawyers are sceptical about rankings, but I looked into rankings to see which firm offers high quality work across a range of areas. They are both phenomenal at corporate, but what if I decided not to qualify into corporate?

Swings and roundabouts. It is possible to over-think these things. Go back to the firms and talk to people. Go with your gut. You can't really go far wrong. If you do get things wrong, training at either will open doors to many other firms on qualification (at that point, it will depend on you, not your firm).

Obviously I think the firm I've chosen to go to is the better choice for me. But I am trying, and perhaps failing, to remain neutral.



Congrats on the TC. A number of people I know canceled SandM and A&O interviews because they run so many of them after September 1. People can't be bothered when they either have their first choice TC or a similar offer. It's a very fortunate position to be in.

I should also point out that each of the three categories is not as simple as they may initially appear.

Take the point about the structure of the TC and variety of experiences. I don't think there's any need to be this clinical, but there are probably several points that could be made:

1. The amount of trainees in one department at a time tells you something about the spread of the firm.

2. If I remember correctly, there are six corporate sub-groups at Slaughters and four at Freshfields. Conversely, Freshfields has five Dispute Resolution sub-groups whereas Slaughters has one DR group.

3. Consider the multi-specialist training contract versus the eight (but probably six) seat approach.

4. At Freshfields, you can change your mind as you go along on your TC; at Slaughters you decide all your seats up front. One gives you certainty, but its rigidity can lead to disappointment if you change your mind. The other gives you flexibility, but you can also be disappointed -- there are a number of trainee preferences to juggle every 3 months and everyone can't get their first choice.

5. Slaughters requires you to sit in Corporate and Finance, which is 12 months of your TC (and many people will do one more seat in these areas). Freshfields has no requirements, but it will be a very rare trainee who doesn't spend time in one of those departments.

6. You will have more international and client secondment opportunities in your fourth seat at Freshfields. Spending your fourth seat at Slaughters, and the way they handle qualification, means you have more of a chance of qualifying into your fourth seat than you would elsewhere.

7. I know lawyers are sceptical about rankings, but I looked into rankings to see which firm offers high quality work across a range of areas. They are both phenomenal at corporate, but what if I decided not to qualify into corporate?

Swings and roundabouts. It is possible to over-think these things. Go back to the firms and talk to people. Go with your gut. You can't really go far wrong. If you do get things wrong, training at either will open doors to many other firms on qualification (at that point, it will depend on you, not your firm).

Obviously I think the firm I've chosen to go to is the better choice for me. But I am trying, and perhaps failing, to remain neutral.



Congrats on the TC. A number of people I know canceled SandM and A&O interviews because they run so many of them after September 1. People can't be bothered when they either have their first choice TC or a similar offer. It's a very fortunate position to be in.

Also, I would check how good the clients secondments are at any firm that you're looking at. I was really impressed by the quality of Freshfields client secondments, as not all magic circle firms - not sure about Slaughters - allow trainees to work at clients during their training contract as a matter of course. Can't remember who was on it exactly, and I'm sure the list changes, but I remember that the Bank of England, the London Stock Exchange, Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs and Rolls-Royce were all on the client trainee secondment list.

All MC firms have trainee client secondments as far as I am aware. The best secondment I've heard of is the trainee secondment to Airbus in Toulouse which CC run (but I imagine you have to speak French).

Also, I would check how good the clients secondments are at any firm that you're looking at. I was really impressed by the quality of Freshfields client secondments, as not all magic circle firms - not sure about Slaughters - allow trainees to work at clients during their training contract as a matter of course. Can't remember who was on it exactly, and I'm sure the list changes, but I remember that the Bank of England, the London Stock Exchange, Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs and Rolls-Royce were all on the client trainee secondment list.

I'm now in a similar position as you. I have A&O and Freshfields - as well as Lathams. I've decided to go with a MC - but as to which - I'm still up in the air about.

As you've said - so many roundabouts...

What are your thoughts? How keen are you on a (probably, but not necessarily) finance heavy training contract?

I'm definitely more keen on the financial side of things. So Allen's appears the most logical choice. It's just such a difficult thing to decide upon. They both have amazing reputations so I really do need to focus on the potential departments I'd wanna work in.

I'm definitely more keen on the financial side of things. So Allen's appears the most logical choice. It's just such a difficult thing to decide upon. They both have amazing reputations so I really do need to focus on the potential departments I'd wanna work in.

If it's finance go to A&O. Corporate or Disputes (other than banking lit) FBD.

Yeah, this.

In general, Le Nombre and legal_beagle are probably the most likely to know what they are talking about. They are actual trainees and probably know people at both firms.

I should add mine is a sweeping generalisation, they are both excellent firms in most areas, and if you preferred the feel of one over the other do take that into account. Obviously not everyone at work is going to be your BFF, but you don't want to spend most of your waking, and some sleeping, hours with people you don't like.

I second this. If you have a gut feeling I would follow that. A&O is strong in finance and as that corresponds with your interests it's a good fit. If it was me, my only reservation would be that A&O - and CC - both have huge, highly leveraged banking teams in London with lots of associates to partners covering some pretty commoditised areas of the market.

Also, it's important not to overgeneralise, as the so-called 'corporate focused MC firms' - FF and LL - probably have the best practices in restructuring and insolvency, one of the few really profitable areas of finance. Linklaters instruction for Lehmans administrators supposedly earned them £1 million plus per week; while Freshfields advised the BoE, the Icelandic Banks and Northern Rock.