The Student Room Group

Job prospects with the QLTS / foreign civil law qualification

Hi all,

I'm doing some market research on job prospects of people who have qualified in a civil law jurisdiction, passed the QLTS and subsequently look to work for a big (international) law firm in London.

I am aware that being qualified in another common law jurisdiction such as Australia makes finding work in London much easier and renders the QLTS more of a formality, which is why I am not asking about QLTS per se.

Let's assume the requirements to qualify in said civil law jurisdiction are comparable to those of England (i.e., 1-2 years of training in a law firm and some type of rigorous professional examination before, during or after you complete the training) and that the law of said jurisdiction is somewhat respected and well-known (I'm talking French, German, Austrian, Swiss, Spanish, Italian law etc.).

Let's also assume said person is fluent in three or four major European languages and has generally excelled in his or her studies and previous work experience, and that the person is either an NQ or 1PQ, thus without many professional contacts who are in a position to influence hiring decisions.

What are the odds of this person finding work in a City firm at NQ level?

Have you heard of anyone (regardless of their profile) who did not train in the UK and who found work in legal practice without going through GDL / re-qualification? Have you heard of people trying and failing? Do you know people who re-trained despite being qualified overseas lawyers?

I'd be interested to hear any stories (positive or negative) as I'm trying to get a realistic idea of what things look like.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: Let's also assume this person is not necessarily looking to be an international arbitration lawyer (though this is an option).Tips on practice areas that are easier or more difficult to penetrate than others are also welcome.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 1
Original post by J-SP
If you have less than 2 years experience you will struggle with NQ roles, as you will be competing with local qualified lawyers who have completed 2 years as a trainee. General rule of thumb is that you will need at least 2 years experience (with closer to 3+) and have passed the QLTS to be with a good chance of working as a dual qualified lawyer. Even if you do have that length of experience, it has to be with the same type of sectors/clients that the firm in the UK has worked on (this is where a lot of people fall down).

It is different if you can find work as a lawyer who is only qualified in your home jurisdiction, but your chances of work highly depend on which jurisdiction your qualified in.

The QLTS is still a relatively new process where the first people who took it only passed/qualified less than 3-4 years ago. And with pass rate as low as they have been there is not a huge volume of dual qualified lawyers who are working in the UK who have taken the QLTS. I doubt you will find many on here and even if you do, they will have a set of very individual experiences that may be very different to yours.

Best bets - finding a law firm in your home country and transfer with them rather than trying to find an job here for no one you have worked for before. Or find people via networks like LinkedIn who have a similar profile to you and who are now working in the UK and get their advice and insight to their experience.

If this is general research rather than your own personal research, then this is a minefield with far too many variables to be able to give you any clear insight. Even the "respectable" jurisdictions you list vary massively in terms of cross over in the type of work you do - e.g: Spain/Italy are not seen as major financial hubs in the same way the UK/US/HK are, and therefore you see less similar clients/work coming through those jurisdictions.

Put simply, your chances of securing work will be far more dependent on your experiences within your home country.

Let's put it this way, I've met many 100s of people looking for this type of route in the UK, often pursing an LLM to try and improve their chances of employment and the vast majority have little chance of securing work here. The people I know who have done it have generally transferred within a law firm.


Thanks a lot for your valuable insight, it is very much appreciated! When talking about the work experience necessary to compete with English NQs, do you mean work experience gained post graduation or post qualification? I'd expect the former since I'd be competing for NQ roles but since we are sort of comparing apples and oranges (English trained / foreign trained) I'm not sure.

The research is mostly personal so it probably can't hurt to share a little more detail.

I'll be Swiss qualified as of next summer (if all goes well). I'll have 2 years of full-time work experience post graduation by the time I qualify (though only one year at a business law firm, six months as a court clerk, and two three-month arbitration internships abroad which probably don't count). I've trained in very different fields so I do not really have a profile yet. Ideally, I'd find a position in real estate / construction since that's what I did the most while training at the law firm (a City firm equivalent). Private client work is also an interesting option since I've had quite a bit of academic exposure to English law (mainly to questions of estate planning). Dispute resolution is also an interesting option but since the market for that seems even more saturated than other fields, and given that every law student under the sun wants to do arbitration these days, it is not necessarily at the top of my list. I am open to other fields but this is something I'll have to decide soon it appears.

Thank you also for the helpful tip of internal transferring. I hold an associate offer (not tied to a particular department) from the firm I trained at and this firm also has a respectable London practice. However, as is very understandable, they are not terribly keen on sending people abroad without the certainty of getting them back later on. It is certainly an option worth looking into, though.

I was not aware that the QLTS was such a new route and I also had no idea that pass rates were considered low - the Kaplan website lists pass rates of consistently above 50% for the multiple choice part, which I find pretty decent given that no previous exposure to English law is required to take the exam. Frankly, if the pass rates were any higher I wouldn't expect a law firm to trust someone whose only proven English law knowledge is passing the QLTS, as opposed to completing a GDL and LPC.

I realise that the whole project is a very long shot. At the end of the day, all I can do is build the best possible profile and try.
Reply 2
Original post by J-SP
I suspect most people would advise you to go the TC route rather than a NQ role as your experience isn't comparable to someone who is a NQ in the U.K.

For any NQ role in the UK you would need at least two years of equivalent experience (e.g in a law firm, dealing with the same type of clients/work that someone would have done as a trainee in that firm). And that would also need to include 6 months experience in that particular practice area in the U.K.

The issue with the TC route is that most firms recruit 3-4 years in advance and so you could utilise that time working in your home jurisdiction gaining more experience.

So I think at this stage you would find it very difficult to find work in the U.K. as a lawyer. If you were working as a Swiss qualified lawyer but in the U.K, this will be very very small niche. Such lawyers are probably going to be recruited in Switzerland.

If you try to work as a dual qualified lawyer, your current experience does not really match up to the vast majority of the qualified lawyer market. They have more transferable experience, knowing domestic much better than you and having two years commercial experience to your one.

It's not to say you couldn't work in the UK, I know of foreign qualified lawyers working as paralegals. But to many that's not attractive given the nature of the work compared to what they have done in their home country.

I think you would find it very difficult at this stage and would probably advise getting more transferable experience first and then looking to transfer across.


Thank you for your honest answer. This is very helpful advice.

When I started to explore this topic, it was my impression that the main issue with the QLTS would be that law firms do not regard it as sufficient proof of skills in English law - just like passing the NY bar with merely an LLM is not as likely to get you a job as with a JD. After reading what you wrote, it seems that the main problem will be the lack of experience because my professional training pre-qualification is not seen as equivalent (though I assume that all else being equal, the odds will still be in favour of someone who has done all their academic training in England - please correct me if I'm wrong). Then there is of course the domestic practical experience that I'll be lacking compared to someone who did their TC in England and that I can't get abroad.

The TC route would be an option if I came straight out of university. However, having done 2+ years of training here already, waiting a further 3 years only to start from scratch takes it a little far (don't get me wrong; I know this will come with opportunity costs, and I'm obviously willing to bear them to a degree). As things stand, I'd rather take the risk and get more transferrable experience at home, network and hope for an opportunity as I go. The firm I trained at has an associate exchange programme in place which I could probably use once I'm a 2PQ, and then the chances of staying put would hopefully be a bit better.
Reply 3
Original post by J-SP
You are right about the QLTS - that is more of a regulation/tick box exercise allowing you to practice rather than any indication of your ability to do so.

The experience is the main issue. You are competing in a job market where there are plenty of locally trained NQs with two years experience in English law. You are always going to be one masssive step behind them, so to be able to compete with them you would need at least comparable experience to them (if not more impressive in terms of clients, complexity of work, international cross over of jurisdictions, size and scale) + the QLTS.

The exchange programme sounds like a good opportunity.

Sorry I haven't really given you the answer you were looking for. The English legal system is quirky and traditional and the recruitment process follows that.

Also be aware that in the future the QLTS might not exist in its current form. There are current changes that might happen by 2019 which would work much more like the NY Bar, although a two stage process where you do training in between two sets of exams. It might make your process of transferring actually easier.


You absolutely have given me the answer I was looking for. I didn't expect anyone to tell me it was going to be easy - I was looking to find out how hard it would be exactly. Knowing what the main hurdles will be is of tremendous help because it allows me to make plans accordingly.

I think having realistic expectations is key to not getting frustrated early on. If things work out more easily than predicted, all the better. I know that the job market in the UK is very competitive even for domestic lawyers, so that's also a thing to keep in mind.
Reply 4
Original post by J-SP
You are right about the QLTS - that is more of a regulation/tick box exercise allowing you to practice rather than any indication of your ability to do so.

The experience is the main issue. You are competing in a job market where there are plenty of locally trained NQs with two years experience in English law. You are always going to be one masssive step behind them, so to be able to compete with them you would need at least comparable experience to them (if not more impressive in terms of clients, complexity of work, international cross over of jurisdictions, size and scale) + the QLTS.

The exchange programme sounds like a good opportunity.

Sorry I haven't really given you the answer you were looking for. The English legal system is quirky and traditional and the recruitment process follows that.

Also be aware that in the future the QLTS might not exist in its current form. There are current changes that might happen by 2019 which would work much more like the NY Bar, although a two stage process where you do training in between two sets of exams. It might make your process of transferring actually easier.



Could I pick your brain on another topic? Since we've established that the QLTS is more of a formality and isn't great evidence of one's legal knowledge, I'm wondering whether the following courses of action would be beneficial to a career in London (I could always complete the QLTS / conversion formalities afterwards):

- complete a graduate route online LLB (either with BPP Law School, University of London International Programmes, or Nottingham Trent - those seem to be the respectable options out there) - two years of full-time study (I'd probably do it part-time though since I'll be working); or
- complete the online GDL with BPP Law School (one year full-time study) and possibly their fast-track LPC afterwards (four to five months)

Both options are not cheap, though it seems that the graduate entry LLB at UoL is the most affordable option. In terms of efficiency the GDL route seems to be fastest. However, I'm not entirely certain to what degree the GDL / LPC combination is beneficial if one does not intend to do a TC but simply seeks to get up to speed with UK educated lawyers.

These are at the moment purely theoretical options to me, I'm not looking to start anything in the immediate future.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance!
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 5
Original post by J-SP
The LLB isn't necessary and even if you choose this route, you would still need to complete the LPC.

The GDL and LPC is only needed if you are looking to take a training contract. Some firms take on "trainees" who are qualified in another jurisdiction and get them to complete the QLTS either prior to or during the training contract - they are usually called legal assistants as they can't be called trainees - it's rare but it does happen. If you want to work in England and Wales, then the QLTS is your best option. In some ways the GDL and LPC are equally tick box exercises as much as the QLTS is.

You definitely wouldn't do either an LLB + LPC or GDL + LPC and then do the QLTS. That makes no sense at all - you might as well just do the training contract.

If you think this academic route is to help fill the lack of knowledge of English law, it really doesn't work like that. The issue is the lack of experience working on English legal matters for two years. Doing these courses won't really improve your chances if you are looking for NQ work because it doesn't improve your work experience.

By the time you get to NQ stage, the big thing that influences your chances of getting a job is the type of work you did. Academics become far less important as everyone has them.



Thanks, understood. I realise that the approach to academics is very different from the one taken over here - in Switzerland (and I dare say in much of continental Europe), no one would dream of admitting someone to practice law who has completed a one-year conversion course as opposed to the usual three or four-year law degree, even if they were capable to pass the bar exam. Hence my wondering whether additional studying would fill the gap in theoretical knowledge that the QLTS doesn't fill.

What you say makes more sense to me, though. I doubt that an M&A lawyer would still remember the intricacies of criminal procedure five years into practicing, which has me wonder why we all absolutely MUST learn those details in the first place over here.

Again, many thanks for your insights.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by J-SP
That is they key difference though. They are not admitted until they have 2 years of training, through the training contract. It is why firms here look so carefully at the experience the individual has gained during their training contract (seats sat in, type of clients you have worked with/for). It is like the 2 years of training is the "education" required to show you are competent - you have to complete a course called the PSC during the two years too.

Dear J-SP,

Many thanks for this, this is very helpful advice indeed. I am also in a situation somewhat similar to Michelliki. I have four years of experience (of which two at post-qualified level) and I recently obtained an LLM in a very prestigious US law school. I am admitted in my native civil law jurisdiction (one of EU's biggest economies) and will be admitted in NY later this year.

I had several of these conversations recently with London pratictioners in my area (arbitration and litigation) and I already received many times the advice of getting "more experience" home and then try to transfer within a firm or otherwise come to London with more experience.

However, this approach seems to be very difficult, I think, for two reasons:

1) with few exceptions, international offices are very independent. Every office has its clients and its unique areas of practice. For instance in my area (disputes) local offices of UK/US firms just have no capabilities in truly international areas such as international arbitration (under ICC/LCIA rules etc) or internal investigations/FCPA. Indeed in my home jurisdiction arbitration is almost exclusively domestic. I don't know anyone in my home country that managed to persuade his or her US/UK employer to transfer him or her to London (or anywhere else for what matters) for good.

2) If one were o "sell" his or her experience in his or her native jurisdiction for a position in London, I struggle to think about any areas of practice in a EU civil jurisdiction which are transferrable to the UK a part, pheraps, from EU Antitrust/competition law.
For example my area is disputes. Say that I get another 3 or 4 years of post qualified experience in disputes in my jurisdiction which means, for the vast majority of time, litigation in the domestic courts and, may be, some domestic arbitration (very few pratictioners actually handle LCIA, ICC or ICDR cases). This is hardly transferrable to the UK, let alone for the circumstance that I would perform legal research, draft and speak in a language different from english. The only opportunity I can foresee in London for someone with this profile is...advising on the law of his or her native jurisdiction in London in a sort of foreign desk, which is not quite like being a Solicitor.

I am keen to hear more about this route of doing a training contract bypassing the GDL/LPC. Having worked in London for a while (as a contract lawyer), I was under the impression that "legal assistants" were just paralegals with a GDL and an LPC (at least that was the case in the firms I worked) and no hopes of securing a TC or ever qualifying anywhere.

Are you aware of which firms would consider this route? If so is this ad-hoc (i.e. they need exactly a foreign lawyer from a certain jurisdiction and with certain language skills) or they would consider re-training someone who does not have specific experience in the department of destination? Would the recruitment process follow the usual terms (2 years in advance etc) or is more handled at an ad-hoc basis by the relevant partner?
Original post by Elcid89
Dear J-SP,

Many thanks for this, this is very helpful advice indeed. I am also in a situation somewhat similar to Michelliki. I have four years of experience (of which two at post-qualified level) and I recently obtained an LLM in a very prestigious US law school. I am admitted in my native civil law jurisdiction (one of EU's biggest economies) and will be admitted in NY later this year.

I had several of these conversations recently with London pratictioners in my area (arbitration and litigation) and I already received many times the advice of getting "more experience" home and then try to transfer within a firm or otherwise come to London with more experience.

However, this approach seems to be very difficult, I think, for two reasons:

1) with few exceptions, international offices are very independent. Every office has its clients and its unique areas of practice. For instance in my area (disputes) local offices of UK/US firms just have no capabilities in truly international areas such as international arbitration (under ICC/LCIA rules etc) or internal investigations/FCPA. Indeed in my home jurisdiction arbitration is almost exclusively domestic. I don't know anyone in my home country that managed to persuade his or her US/UK employer to transfer him or her to London (or anywhere else for what matters) for good.

2) If one were o "sell" his or her experience in his or her native jurisdiction for a position in London, I struggle to think about any areas of practice in a EU civil jurisdiction which are transferrable to the UK a part, pheraps, from EU Antitrust/competition law.
For example my area is disputes. Say that I get another 3 or 4 years of post qualified experience in disputes in my jurisdiction which means, for the vast majority of time, litigation in the domestic courts and, may be, some domestic arbitration (very few pratictioners actually handle LCIA, ICC or ICDR cases). This is hardly transferrable to the UK, let alone for the circumstance that I would perform legal research, draft and speak in a language different from english. The only opportunity I can foresee in London for someone with this profile is...advising on the law of his or her native jurisdiction in London in a sort of foreign desk, which is not quite like being a Solicitor.

I am keen to hear more about this route of doing a training contract bypassing the GDL/LPC. Having worked in London for a while (as a contract lawyer), I was under the impression that "legal assistants" were just paralegals with a GDL and an LPC (at least that was the case in the firms I worked) and no hopes of securing a TC or ever qualifying anywhere.

Are you aware of which firms would consider this route? If so is this ad-hoc (i.e. they need exactly a foreign lawyer from a certain jurisdiction and with certain language skills) or they would consider re-training someone who does not have specific experience in the department of destination? Would the recruitment process follow the usual terms (2 years in advance etc) or is more handled at an ad-hoc basis by the relevant partner?


Hello, I understand your predicament entirely.

I hate to say it but you are in entirely the wrong practice area. Disputes (particularly domestic arbitration or litigation) as a practice area is simply not transferable, and you would struggle to find employment in an English firm if you move to London.

If I were you, I would either move to a firm which specialises in international arbitration, or move to M&A/financing in big enough firm. Many big transactions are governed by English law even if there is nothing about the transaction (the parties' domicile, place of performance, etc) that is English, and you can play it up in your subsequent applications to English firms.

It seems you are an EU citizen and therefore have the right to reside and work in the UK for the time-being. The paralegal => qualification (via the SQE or otherwise) route is therefore (currently) available to you if you don't mind being technically overqualified for the work that you will be doing. It is not impossible, and I know of people who have qualified by that route. This might be preferable to qualifying via the QLTS and then looking for a solicitor-type job when you don't have any English law experience.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by Blann
Hello, I understand your predicament entirely.

I hate to say it but you are in entirely the wrong practice area. Disputes (particularly domestic arbitration or litigation) as a practice area is simply not transferable, and you would struggle to find employment in an English firm if you move to London.

If I were you, I would either move to a firm which specialises in international arbitration, or move to M&A/financing in big enough firm. Many big transactions are governed by English law even if there is nothing about the transaction (the parties' domicile, place of performance, etc) that is English, and you can play it up in your subsequent applications to English firms.

It seems you are an EU citizen and therefore have the right to reside and work in the UK for the time-being. The paralegal => qualification (via the SQE or otherwise) route is therefore (currently) available to you if you don't mind being technically overqualified for the work that you will be doing. It is not impossible, and I know of people who have qualified by that route. This might be preferable to qualifying via the QLTS and then looking for a solicitor-type job when you don't have any English law experience.


Yes, moving to international arbitration. The problem is that true international arbitration practices only exist in a handful of jurisdictions (UK, France, Switzerland in Europe) and for example, in my own, there are may be five or six law firm parters doing this kind of work. Plus, as it was mentioned before, this is a very competitive area and requirements are very high even for mere Internships. An LLM with a specialization in arbitration is the bare minimum, and I took my LLM in US, in a school verty well known for this area, exactly for that reason - and for the possibility of taking the NY Bar. However, I was told by London pratictioners that they still prefer Solicitors since, on top of arbitration work (which anyone can do), they can do also enforcement /advocacy/litigation work in the UK Courts. And how else could somebody learn to litigate in the UK courts, outside a UK training contract? I worked in London as a Contract Lawyer in the disputes practices of a top US firm and of a MC firm and I have seen a lot of people from NZ/CA/AU etc. working as Associates (and sometimes with little or no experience in their home jurisdiction), even before taking the QLTS. I have never seen anyone from continental europe being hired in this way (I see often job openings asking for "commonwealth qualified" lawyers, thus excluding also US lawyers).


As an EU Qualified Lawyer I could indeed register at the SRA as a Registered European Lawyer (and, by law, a REL can do almost everything a Solicitor does with the exception of advocacy in senior courts), do whatever work in London for three years and then ask the SRA to transfer me to the Roll of Solicitors under the Freedom of Establishment Directive (this is very easy, I know people who were able to do that just doing document review or working in-house in London). However most law firm partners in London are, if not from UK, from NZ/AU/US and just refuse to understand how straightforward is this - a bit like when the Prime Minister complained that EU Citizens "jump the queue".

As to the odds of getting an Associate position after the QLTS I can say that I don't know anyone who passed the exam and subsequently obtained a job. Firms may want to hire someone possessing some special skills (i.e. russian or chinese at native level) and then pay for them to move and pass the QLTS - but this is the other way around and confirms that QLTS/Solicitor qualification is just a regulatory requirement.
Having worked in London for some time before my LLM, I can also say that I have never seen anyone, starting as paralegal/contract lawyer/legal assistant - whatever, being promoted to Associate. I could tell you also about a few stories of paralegals who, during the course of their employment, passed the QLTS and were prohibited by their employers to register at the SRA as Solicitors because they wanted to keep them as paralegals, on the assumption that their experience was "not matching a trainee solicitor experience" albeit they had like five years of paralegal exerience in London in a given practice area (so actually more than any NQ who would have, at most, one seat/six months of experience in a given practice area!). The problem is not to qualify as a Solicitor, but to have soem special skillset that may persuade a firm to hire you instead of someone from the usual Oxbridge/Training Contract route.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 9
Original post by J-SP
You don’t need to be from Oxbridge to do a TC.

Where are you from originally?

I am from (and admitted in) one of the EU founding member States.

Quick Reply

Latest