TC applications Watch

Lewisy-boy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#101
Report 11 years ago
#101
I agree 100% with kalok, you hear too much crap from all firms bigging up their own position. One thing to bear in mind is that both 'styles' of firm criticise each other because it's just friendly competition. Further, that thing about not being in the head office doesn't matter at all US firms. Some, admittedly, use their London office merely as a satellite of NY or whatever, but many (the more established ones) are genuinely committed to work originated in the UK so you won't just be a deal *****, as I'll call it. Most of the US firms who have established training schemes, however, are the ones with a bigger presence. As for the MC or other leading UK firms, no-one can deny that they will give you a stellar training and set you up extremely well, and they're a 'safe' bet as someone alluded to above, but in the words of the audience in any Bruce Forsyth game show my personal preference to is 'GAMBLE, GAMBLE'.
0
quote
reply
silence
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#102
Report 11 years ago
#102
that is very tue and has opened my mind slightly. my current 'favourite firm' (although i'm still at the stage of vac scheme application) is a US firm with one of those training systems giving maximum responsibility and flexibility. i suppose it is ultimately down to personal choice and matching your personality - i do feel that if training at a US firm you'd need to make sure you make the most out the training, otherwise you could be left relatively clueless and untrained after two years. training at a UK firm seems like you'll be at least a semi-decent NQ at the end of it whether you fully find your feet or not.

if you are the sort of person to make the most of opportunities (e.g. by getting on tonnes of vac schemes), then perhaps an american firm could be worth the risk? almost all the MC firms do seem to be continually coming on leaps and bounds though, even when it seems as if they can't get that much better.
0
quote
reply
Lush Law
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#103
Report 11 years ago
#103
I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me...I've applied for TCs, and have heard from most of the firms I applied to. I am still to hear from a few but it seems that a lot of the assessment has already taken place so is there little chance of me getting interviews at the firms I'm still waiting from or does the recruitment process continue throughout september/october?? aarrghh fed up of TC shiz.
0
quote
reply
mr_lawyer
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#104
Report 11 years ago
#104
(Original post by Lush Law)
I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me...I've applied for TCs, and have heard from most of the firms I applied to. I am still to hear from a few but it seems that a lot of the assessment has already taken place so is there little chance of me getting interviews at the firms I'm still waiting from or does the recruitment process continue throughout september/october?? aarrghh fed up of TC shiz.
I havent heard of interviews going on as late as October, to be honest. But most firms - and I can only think of Slaughter and May and Freshfields as exceptions - let you know within 24-48 hours if you've got a training contract. I suspect what you'll find is that right now a lot of people will be cancelling their interviews, as they hold the offers from their vac schemes / interviews in August, so you should probably hear early next week. Pick the earliest interview slot available, if you are offered a choice.
0
quote
reply
mr_lawyer
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#105
Report 11 years ago
#105
(Original post by silence)
that is very tue and has opened my mind slightly. my current 'favourite firm' (although i'm still at the stage of vac scheme application) is a US firm with one of those training systems giving maximum responsibility and flexibility. i suppose it is ultimately down to personal choice and matching your personality - i do feel that if training at a US firm you'd need to make sure you make the most out the training, otherwise you could be left relatively clueless and untrained after two years. training at a UK firm seems like you'll be at least a semi-decent NQ at the end of it whether you fully find your feet or not.

if you are the sort of person to make the most of opportunities (e.g. by getting on tonnes of vac schemes), then perhaps an american firm could be worth the risk? almost all the MC firms do seem to be continually coming on leaps and bounds though, even when it seems as if they can't get that much better.
This might sway you, but speaking to people at Michael Page (the leading law recruitment agency), and they've all said MC training is the way to go. It makes it much, much easier to find work elsewhere - if you look at their website, they use terms such as 'Magic Circle' and 'Silver Circle' throughout. It is much easier to make the transition from MC --> US, if you want than the other way round because MC is a national hallmark of quality that the US firms, despite many being just as good (i.e. Cleary, White & Case) cannot compete with.
0
quote
reply
lawstudent17
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 11 years ago
#106
(Original post by mr_lawyer)
This might sway you, but speaking to people at Michael Page (the leading law recruitment agency), and they've all said MC training is the way to go. It makes it much, much easier to find work elsewhere - if you look at their website, they use terms such as 'Magic Circle' and 'Silver Circle' throughout. It is much easier to make the transition from MC --> US, if you want than the other way round because MC is a national hallmark of quality that the US firms, despite many being just as good (i.e. Cleary, White & Case) cannot compete with.
Are you sure that's the case. I wouldn't have thought it would make much difference/be of much significance if you were moving to an MC firm after training in a US firm. As I understand it, most of the US firms in London aren't really satellite offices, rather they are offices in their own right and most are competing with MC firms to do work for the top clients.
0
quote
reply
mr_lawyer
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#107
Report 11 years ago
#107
(Original post by lawstudent17)
Are you sure that's the case. I wouldn't have thought it would make much difference/be of much significance if you were moving to an MC firm after training in a US firm. As I understand it, most of the US firms in London aren't really satellite offices, rather they are offices in their own right and most are competing with MC firms to do work for the top clients.
I'm simply relaying what I've been told. Your impression of the American firms, however, is wildly optimistic. The UK office of even the very biggest American firms are tiny in comparison to their New York base; thus, to an extent you are very much in a satellite office. This cannot be denied. This does not mean the work they undertake is not of MC quality, but that is the case also for associates / trainees at Freshfields in Washington, or A&O in New York (and so on). Thus, a significant amount of your work is subordinate to the main effort in the States.

The broader issue, however, is what 'Magic Circle' means. My point, and the one my friend at Michael Page emphasised, is that everyone in the legal services industry in the United Kingdom will see that name and instantly know that you have trained at a Magic Circle firm. The leading US firms, at yet, do not carry this hallmark in part because there is not a banding for the best; and some - i.e. Dechert, Jones Day, Mayer Browne - are definitely not chasing at the heels of the MC firms (in recruiting trainees).
0
quote
reply
kalokagathia
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#108
Report 11 years ago
#108
You need to consider though that the 'train-at-MC-then-move-to-US-as-NQ' scenario is becoming rapidly less and less viable as an increasing number of US firms are gearing up their own trainee programmes. At present, all of Latham's and Skadden's NQs are lateral hires; in three years time, virtually all of them will be home-grown. As I pointed out on another thread, Sullivan are currently applying for training contract accreditation and rumour has it that even Cravath will be taking trainees in a few years time.. At the moment, US firms take MC trainees because they have to; but every person I spoke to involved in legal recruitment at a US firm has a strong preference for limiting lateral hires at NQ level as much as possible..
0
quote
reply
Lewisy-boy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#109
Report 11 years ago
#109
Again kalok is right, and, once you've trained at a US firm, most people wouldn't want to move to a UK firm, even if they are MC, because it would mean a whopping great pay cut. I know that sounds greedy, but it's life people. Why would you take less money for the same job when the hours are the same? I think it will be some time before Cravath's London office is big enough to be a good place to train, in much the same way as latham is only just becoming so, but with the likes of Latham and Skadden while lateral hiring will continue in the short term, it will decrease once they reach close to the size they want in London and so you shouldn't rely on that route into the US firms like people have previously.
0
quote
reply
emmings
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#110
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#110
Just had an email saying that I'm on the reserve list for a firm I did an assessment day with on Friday. Absolutely gutted as it was my top choice, and although I haven't been rejected outright, chances are extremely slim. I have another interview tomorrow but it's hard to be positive when I've had 3 rejections outright and 2 after first round interview.
0
quote
reply
silence
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#111
Report 11 years ago
#111
here's a question...

when it comes to firms giving out offers for TCs, do they give out more offers than they have places (as it's relatively likely that not everyone will accept the offer)?
0
quote
reply
Lewisy-boy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#112
Report 11 years ago
#112
god only knows, you'd have to ask firms. unlucky emmings, sorry to hear that.
0
quote
reply
always + forever
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#113
Report 11 years ago
#113
when it comes to firms giving out offers for TCs, do they give out more offers than they have places (as it's relatively likely that not everyone will accept the offer)?
It seems that some firms may do something a bit like that, with this whole 'reserve list' thing. I guess each firm would have a different HR policy. Good luck for tomorrow emmings!
0
quote
reply
shishio
Badges: 0
#114
Report 11 years ago
#114
arghhhhhhhhh ne1 heard from Linklaters or Slaughter and may as yet? this is sooo nerve wracking
0
quote
reply
Ishtar
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#115
Report 11 years ago
#115
(Original post by Lewisy-boy)
Again kalok is right, and, once you've trained at a US firm, most people wouldn't want to move to a UK firm, even if they are MC, because it would mean a whopping great pay cut. I know that sounds greedy, but it's life people. Why would you take less money for the same job when the hours are the same? I think it will be some time before Cravath's London office is big enough to be a good place to train, in much the same way as latham is only just becoming so, but with the likes of Latham and Skadden while lateral hiring will continue in the short term, it will decrease once they reach close to the size they want in London and so you shouldn't rely on that route into the US firms like people have previously.
Kalokagathia is right, but misleading as ever. US firms will continue to laterally hire, but will target more senior associates, far into the future. I'm not sure that as a NQ in MC it would be the best move to change firm straight away anyway. Plus, the further down the line you get, the more the pay gap closes.

A talented MC associate will most likely have the chance to move if they want to. Especially as Latham, for example, is looking to double the size of its London office. They are not going to use magic to do this.
0
quote
reply
chalks
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#116
Report 11 years ago
#116
(Original post by freckles29)

A talented MC associate will most likely have the chance to move if they want to. Especially as Latham, for example, is looking to double the size of its London office. They are not going to use magic to do this.
Don't miss J.K. Rowling's unexpected next book, "Harry Potter and the rapidly expanding London-based US law firm", a gripping tale of how our beloved young magician starts work for the HR department of a well-known white shoe practice with the specific aim of hiring new lawyers through magical means. Recruitiarmus!

On a boring note, I'd echo Kalokgathia's comments. If I'd been asked 5 years ago whether one should train at the MC or with a leading US firm, I'd recommend the MC. However, that is no longer the case. I think there is a growing opportunity to get excellent hands-on training at those US firms. My remaining concern is whether those smaller firms have the ability to offer the wide range of practice areas that the MC and chasing pack provide. Those Us firms may be strong in the usual corporate/banking areas but they are less likely to be able to boast powerful litigation, real estate, tax, competition, HR, IP/IT teams etc.
0
quote
reply
Lewisy-boy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#117
Report 11 years ago
#117
Hahahaa, that's a brilliant Harry Potter storyline, and might even make a better film than the most recent one...

The US firms also provide an opportunity for top class training within an office that isn't a sheer behemoth like the MC, which isn't everyone's cup of tea.
0
quote
reply
mr_lawyer
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#118
Report 11 years ago
#118
(Original post by kalokagathia)
You need to consider though that the 'train-at-MC-then-move-to-US-as-NQ' scenario is becoming rapidly less and less viable as an increasing number of US firms are gearing up their own trainee programmes. At present, all of Latham's and Skadden's NQs are lateral hires; in three years time, virtually all of them will be home-grown. As I pointed out on another thread, Sullivan are currently applying for training contract accreditation and rumour has it that even Cravath will be taking trainees in a few years time.. At the moment, US firms take MC trainees because they have to; but every person I spoke to involved in legal recruitment at a US firm has a strong preference for limiting lateral hires at NQ level as much as possible..
I can see the logic of this argument, but it is a weak one given that many US firms are still not taking on trainees, and NQs are not exactly an abundant commodity in the City. The number of NQs I spoke to at my (two) MC placements suggested that a fairly significant number were taken on. And limiting lateral hires at NQ makes no reference to PQE 1,2,3 years later...
0
quote
reply
Ishtar
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#119
Report 11 years ago
#119
(Original post by chalks)
Recruitiarmus!
Genius!

Again, on a more boring note, I would agree that good US firms offer fantastic training - with a choice between, for the sake of argument, Cleary or Linklaters, you are not going to go wrong with either. If you fancy working in a smaller office for more money then go for Cleary.

However, please note that Linklaters is fab.
0
quote
reply
Lewisy-boy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#120
Report 11 years ago
#120
Average at best.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should Banksy be put in prison?

Yes (249)
14.47%
No (1472)
85.53%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise