This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Magic circle law firms
- Can you do anything with a 2:1 in Oxford law?
- Magic Circle Law Firms
- are my grades good enough for MC firms?
- 2.2 with dreams of working at a magic circle law firm
- Uni of Westminster Law Prospects
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- MC Firms and US big law and A levels
- is Nottingham a respected Uni for MC firms
- Studying LLB with Business at Exeter
- How difficult is it to secure a city training contract in a prestigious law firm?
- Cournot Calculation help!
- Two Future Magic Circle Trainees: Ask Us Anything!
- Bristol law or Nottingham law
- Market structures help
- Economics Competition Help
- Is University of Bristol's Law School Good/Prestigious?
- Is switching law firms common?
- Vac scheme unlikely?
- Getting a MC/City firm TC with average GCSES and A Levels?
MC or US firm?
Scroll to see replies
Vitriol01
Ahem...
Where is Sidley?
I can probably add a few others - Reed Smith, Dechert, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Milbank Tweedy, McDermott Will & Emery and (the now defunct) Couderts.
P.S. Dentons isn't a US firm is it?
Where is Sidley?
I can probably add a few others - Reed Smith, Dechert, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Milbank Tweedy, McDermott Will & Emery and (the now defunct) Couderts.
P.S. Dentons isn't a US firm is it?
Ack! Dentons - I cut and paste the wrong one! ...
Yes sorry - I did forget the others ... I did say it wasnt comprehensive!
JohnnyJamJar
thanks...i'm new to law, just goin on to uni this year..
Why would an american law firm have a UK based office? If in the UK its Uk law...stupid question, but still need to know
Why would an american law firm have a UK based office? If in the UK its Uk law...stupid question, but still need to know
The same reason any law firm has offices abroad.
Fact is that London is a global centre of finance. More bond issues take place here than anywhere else owing to the flexible English style bonds, their inclusion of a trustee, and the relative respect for contractual freedom and enforcement.
Additionally, most large syndicated loans are made in London for similar reasons.
In short - US firms have UK offices because it makes more money...
domjohn
Is it only UoL and Oxbridge that allow you to sit the NY bar straight away??
Not really thought about the pros and cons of working for a US firm, but being the true patriot that I am, decided to vote MC!
Not really thought about the pros and cons of working for a US firm, but being the true patriot that I am, decided to vote MC!
It used to be - although I serem to recall it might have changed so that other universities are now eligible.
Lawz-
Not the last though ....
Mind giving reasons for th epreference?
Mind giving reasons for th epreference?
I have to confess my reason for choosing a MC firm is predominantly based on ignorance. I know next to nothing about US firms. As far as Im aware the workload would be similar.
OK, so the pay would be higher at an american firm, but that is not everything.
I will study Law with (a greater or lesser component of) French law. I want to live and work in London. I want to use the knowledge I gain during my time in France whilst working. I think there would be far more demand among MC firms for a lawyer with knowledge of french law working in London, than among US firms.
The prospect of living or working in America does not excite me at all.
If I had have said a US firm, then my only reason would be "money" (or rather "a bit more money on top of a helluvalotta money").
Also..werent you a mod at one stage Lawz?
Phonicsdude
I have to confess my reason for choosing a MC firm is predominantly based on ignorance. I know next to nothing about US firms. As far as Im aware the workload would be similar.
Indeed, there is a myth that US firms work you far harder.
Phonicsdude
OK, so the pay would be higher at an american firm, but that is not everything.
Well its a plus and minus thing - the pay is higher which is a plus - what are the minuses that mean a MC TC remains better?
Phonicsdude
I will study Law with (a greater or lesser component of) French law. I want to live and work in London. I want to use the knowledge I gain during my time in France whilst working. I think there would be far more demand among MC firms for a lawyer with knowledge of french law working in London, than among US firms.
I would disagree. I think that any firm will see it as a plus!
Phonicsdude
The prospect of living or working in America does not excite me at all.
Working in a US firm doesnt have to entail working in the US - most have them have global offices.
Phonicsdude
If I had have said a US firm, then my only reason would be "money" (or rather "a bit more money on top of a helluvalotta money").
There are other benefits - greater responsibility, greater flexibility, less anonymity.
Phonicsdude
Also..werent you a mod at one stage Lawz?
Lol - not that I recall .. I think I offend far too many people.
Phonicsdude
OK, so the pay would be higher at an american firm, but that is not everything.
Phonicsdude
The prospect of living or working in America does not excite me at all.
I am completely contrary to that opinion. I doubt there is a more exciting place to live. America is where everything is happening. Where the richest and most powerful men live. That alone excites me. And there is just so much more.
Death
To some, the pay is far more important than anything else.
I am completely contrary to that opinion. I doubt there is a more exciting place to live. America is where everything is happening. Where the richest and most powerful men live. That alone excites me. And there is just so much more.
I am completely contrary to that opinion. I doubt there is a more exciting place to live. America is where everything is happening. Where the richest and most powerful men live. That alone excites me. And there is just so much more.I would tell you though that in some areas Lodnon is th elegal centre of the world - such as Bonds, and Capital markets in general. Also project finance ... pretty much a two horse race there.
Lawz-
I would disagree. I think that any firm will see it as a plus!
I would disagree. I think that any firm will see it as a plus!
Yes. However, would I really get the chance to use much French law, whilst working for an American company in London?
Lawz
Working in a US firm doesnt have to entail working in the US - most have them have global offices.
I acknowledge that, but I thought I read that a degree of travelling to and from the US (for meetings?!
) was neccessary. Im not too hot on that.lawz
There are other benefits - greater responsibility, greater flexibility, less anonymity.
Greater flexibility would be a massive plus. Greater responsibility would also be nice. I am not, however, interested in fame
.lawz
Lol - not that I recall .. I think I offend far too many people
Offending people on this site, is alas inevitable.
Anyone who doesnt cause offence to some quarters isnt interesting enough to become a mod!Death
I am completely contrary to that opinion. I doubt there is a more exciting place to live. America is where everything is happening. Where the richest and most powerful men live. That alone excites me. And there is just so much more.
I am very European when it comes to matters touched upon in this post. without being snobbish or resorting to crude stereotypes, I much prefer the European culture. It is an older continent and that, particularly through architecture. I would much much prefer to live in europe. Bigger is not neccessarily better!
Lauren18
I'm 'new to law' too - going to Uni this year.
I don't know much about American firms... but I assume they have offices over here because a lot of their work has an international focus - they're not dealing with issues which are only relevant to the domestic laws of one country - i.e. multi-national corporations, banks... that kind of thing I would imagine. I'm sure other people know a lot more (i.e. Lawz).
Note: American firms based in London aren't practicing 'American' law over here, so to speak - the lawyers based in London are trained in English law. If an American firm has offices all over the world this will benefit their reputation, and I assume make it more likely that important work would come their way.
I don't know much about American firms... but I assume they have offices over here because a lot of their work has an international focus - they're not dealing with issues which are only relevant to the domestic laws of one country - i.e. multi-national corporations, banks... that kind of thing I would imagine. I'm sure other people know a lot more (i.e. Lawz).
Note: American firms based in London aren't practicing 'American' law over here, so to speak - the lawyers based in London are trained in English law. If an American firm has offices all over the world this will benefit their reputation, and I assume make it more likely that important work would come their way.
To whoever neg-repped me for this post... why???
I didn't intend to be at all patronising - I was merely stating that I too am 'new to law' (quoting from the previous poster) - and therefore, if I was attempting to be patronising I would also be 'offending' myself.
My post was only intended to be informative and helpful; quite how 'I'm new to law too' is patronising is beyond me - perhaps the person would care to explain - nothing like a good ol' debate!
Phonicsdude
US firms practice as much UK law as UK firms when it comes to their London offices. The only reason you would have less chance to use french law is because of size. Additionally, many of them have french offices.
Phonicsdude
I acknowledge that, but I thought I read that a degree of travelling to and from the US (for meetings?!
) was neccessary. Im not too hot on that.I would depend on the firm and the practice area. Not much reason to go to the US if you are working the Antitrust department.
However in general I think the need for travel to the US is more limited than one might think.
Phonicsdude
.Not fame per se - but you are part of the team, not one cog out of 250.
Phonicsdude
Offending people on this site, is alas inevitable.
Anyone who doesnt cause offence to some quarters isnt interesting enough to become a mod!Well I shall try to offend more then
At the risk of upsetting Mr Cleary Gottlieb (aka Lawz), I'd recommend MC for a TC every time:
1) Broader practice base at the MC means more experience of different areas of the law during training. For example, few of the US firms have an established litigation or real estate practice (I don't think Clearys have a litigation practice at all, for example). Those areas might not be where you think you'll be interested in qualifying but at least at the MC you'll have a chance to sample them properly.
2) Better training and support. Good as the US firms are, on the whole they don't have the in-depth resourcing to provide the quality training that the MC can offer.
3) Reputation. Whilst the US firms do of course have an excellent transatlantic reputation, they are simply not as well known throughout the rest of the world (eg Asia-Pacific) as CC, A&O and Freshies.
4) Hours. The MC will work you hard, but US firms have higher billing targets. There's no getting away from that. There is also a culture of "we own you" which means that you have to get used to being on call anytime, anyplace. Be prepared to cancel weekends away, holidays etc. It happens at the MC, but it happens more at the US firms.
5) Less trainees. Part of the TC is getting to know a group of fellow trainees. Size of the US firms means that there's only likely to be a few of you compared to the dozens at the MC.
On the upside - I agree that at a US firm you'll have more responsibility earlier and be part of an often aggressive team of exceptionally talented lawyers. Oh yes, and you'll be paid truck loads of cash. On the whole though, I'd recommend training and qualifying with an MC firm, finding the area you really want to do and then moving to a US firm if that's still what you want.
No disrepect to those already signed up for the Yankee dollar. Good luck to you (you may need it.....)!
1) Broader practice base at the MC means more experience of different areas of the law during training. For example, few of the US firms have an established litigation or real estate practice (I don't think Clearys have a litigation practice at all, for example). Those areas might not be where you think you'll be interested in qualifying but at least at the MC you'll have a chance to sample them properly.
2) Better training and support. Good as the US firms are, on the whole they don't have the in-depth resourcing to provide the quality training that the MC can offer.
3) Reputation. Whilst the US firms do of course have an excellent transatlantic reputation, they are simply not as well known throughout the rest of the world (eg Asia-Pacific) as CC, A&O and Freshies.
4) Hours. The MC will work you hard, but US firms have higher billing targets. There's no getting away from that. There is also a culture of "we own you" which means that you have to get used to being on call anytime, anyplace. Be prepared to cancel weekends away, holidays etc. It happens at the MC, but it happens more at the US firms.
5) Less trainees. Part of the TC is getting to know a group of fellow trainees. Size of the US firms means that there's only likely to be a few of you compared to the dozens at the MC.
On the upside - I agree that at a US firm you'll have more responsibility earlier and be part of an often aggressive team of exceptionally talented lawyers. Oh yes, and you'll be paid truck loads of cash. On the whole though, I'd recommend training and qualifying with an MC firm, finding the area you really want to do and then moving to a US firm if that's still what you want.
No disrepect to those already signed up for the Yankee dollar. Good luck to you (you may need it.....)!
So you dispute the "greater flexibility" claim with point 4...?
chalks
At the risk of upsetting Mr Cleary Gottlieb (aka Lawz), I'd recommend MC for a TC every time:
Lol ...
chalks
1) Broader practice base at the MC means more experience of different areas of the law during training. For example, few of the US firms have an established litigation or real estate practice (I don't think Cleary have a litigation practice at all, for example). Those areas might not be where you think you'll be interested in qualifying but at least at the MC you'll have a chance to sample them properly.
I would take issue with some of this. Firstly - I am not entirely sure that on the whole there is a broader practice. Of course some things such as Pensions and employment may not be offered by the US firms, but the bulk, the core, the main areas are. The smaller niche stuff .. fair enough .. if you think you might like to do it ... then avoid firms that dont offer it... fair enough.
Cleary is building a litigation practice - but yes it has a financial slant to it. Its mainly corporate. banking, tax, antitrust, PE, and a few other areas. But I take the point on litigation.
I do think you need to choose firms that suit your interests - but the fact is that the vast majority of people will find the area that would have gone to anyway at Cleary.
I know for a fact for instance that I dont want to go into Pensions, or Real estate, so I dont worry about it.
However at a MC firm you will only be able to do 4 seats anyway, and most people will be doing seats they could at a US firm then. Additionally some know for certain where they lean towards from Vacation work etc.
chalks
2) Better training and support. Good as the US firms are, on the whole they don't have the in-depth resourcing to provide the quality training that the MC can offer.
You sit with a partner for every seat and work closely with them on everything. I would take that over seminars any day.
chalks
3) Reputation. Whilst the US firms do of course have an excellent transatlantic reputation, they are simply not as well known throughout the rest of the world (eg Asia-Pacific) as CC, A&O and Freshies.
The US firms are not as international. However for those in the know, and those wihtin the industry, and especially those within the major legal centres of the world, the US firms are equally as well regarded. Cravath will rival A&O for kudos any day.
chalks
4) Hours. The MC will work you hard, but US firms have higher billing targets. There's no getting away from that. There is also a culture of "we own you" which means that you have to get used to being on call anytime, anyplace. Be prepared to cancel weekends away, holidays etc. It happens at the MC, but it happens more at the US firms.
This is outdated really. Many of the firms such as Cleary don’t even have targets in the London Office. Indeed the culture of "work like the rowing scene from Ben Hur" is becoming far more common in the MC. Plus a little hard work never hurt anyone! Having been at Goldman, I think i can take it.
chalks
5) Less trainees. Part of the TC is getting to know a group of fellow trainees. Size of the US firms means that there's only likely to be a few of you compared to the dozens at the MC.
Less trainees can cut both ways. Having 8 or so about means you become much closer to them and have a greater sense of teamwork. Additionally it means that you get to play a far more hands on role. Further the quality of trainees at MC firms is suffering from the fact that they take on so many. to take on close to 140 a year means that you cant possibly be hiring only the very top calibre people.
chalks
On the upside - I agree that at a US firm you'll have more responsibility earlier and be part of an often aggressive team of exceptionally talented lawyers. Oh yes, and you'll be paid truck loads of cash. On the whole though, I'd recommend training and qualifying with an MC firm, finding the area you really want to do and then moving to a US firm if that's still what you want.
Not a bad piece of advice. I think if you dont have much of a clue about what you want to do, and where you want to be in 4 years, a MC might be safer. If you have strong notions and plans however, then a US firm, to my mind offers the better experience.
chalks
No disrespect to those already signed up for the Yankee dollar. Good luck to you (you may need it.....)!
Lol .. thanks ... need it why may I ask? Devaluation?
Not sure what he means by "greater flexibility". Unless it means you're expected to bend over backwards for your employer...!
US firms pay very high salaries. They can only afford to do so if they are bringing in sufficient money. Therefore, billings have to be high and the firm efficient and ultra-profitable. The best way to do that is to squeeze every last cent out of your assets - your trainees and associates.
US firms pay very high salaries. They can only afford to do so if they are bringing in sufficient money. Therefore, billings have to be high and the firm efficient and ultra-profitable. The best way to do that is to squeeze every last cent out of your assets - your trainees and associates.
chalks
Not sure what he means by "greater flexibility". Unless it means you're expected to bend over backwards for your employer...!
No ... just grab your ankles...
What I mean is that you can choose your own practice areas, you can also choose to move between areas and practice in as many as you can handle.
chalks
US firms pay very high salaries. They can only afford to do so if they are bringing in sufficient money. Therefore, billings have to be high and the firm efficient and ultra-profitable. The best way to do that is to squeeze every last cent out of your assets - your trainees and associates.
US firms pay very high salaries. They can only afford to do so if they are bringing in sufficient money. Therefore, billings have to be high and the firm efficient and ultra-profitable. The best way to do that is to squeeze every last cent out of your assets - your trainees and associates.
Well actually aside from Watchell and perhaps Cravath, their PPP are very similar to MC firms... they pay more to associates, and certainly work you hard but:
a) The bill more efficiently
b) They can only squeeze so much
I have firends who are trainee as MC firms and a couple at US firms... they dont seem to have vastly differnt working hours
Lawz - good responses to all my points!
You do seem to recognise though that US firms are probably best suited to those potential trainees who already know which practice areas are going to be for them. With respect, very few people do know that. You can't base your decision on the modules you've done at law school as they bear little resemblance to practice - the best way to experience them is through sampling them as a trainee. My view is that US firms are too finance focussed to give a trainee a good idea of what might suit them. The fact that a trainee could end up doing no contentious work whatsoever is, in my opinion, a serious failing.
As for the good luck - I simply meant that you might need some fortune when you start your TC. It will be a very tough two years. I hope, however, that it is personally rewarding other than in a financial sense!
You do seem to recognise though that US firms are probably best suited to those potential trainees who already know which practice areas are going to be for them. With respect, very few people do know that. You can't base your decision on the modules you've done at law school as they bear little resemblance to practice - the best way to experience them is through sampling them as a trainee. My view is that US firms are too finance focussed to give a trainee a good idea of what might suit them. The fact that a trainee could end up doing no contentious work whatsoever is, in my opinion, a serious failing.
As for the good luck - I simply meant that you might need some fortune when you start your TC. It will be a very tough two years. I hope, however, that it is personally rewarding other than in a financial sense!
chalks
Lawz - good responses to all my points!
Well they were hard to address! Remind me of the trouble I had deciding the issue myself!
chalks
You do seem to recognise though that US firms are probably best suited to those potential trainees who already know which practice areas are going to be for them. With respect, very few people do know that. You can't base your decision on the modules you've done at law school as they bear little resemblance to practice - the best way to experience them is through sampling them as a trainee.
Certainly. Though there is a difference between knowing what you want to do precisely and knowing that you dont want to do family law or Pensions. I know that I want to do something corporate/finance based as I think it gives you the best options for the future. I also think its more interesting.
Additionally, by doing a vacation scheme you can get just such a general idea. Clearly basing it on your academic study of law would be an error.
chalks
My view is that US firms are too finance focussed to give a trainee a good idea of what might suit them. The fact that a trainee could end up doing no contentious work whatsoever is, in my opinion, a serious failing.
Some of them have decent litigation practices in the UK, most are trying to build it up. But yes, some litigation expirience can be useful.
chalks
As for the good luck - I simply meant that you might need some fortune when you start your TC. It will be a very tough two years. I hope, however, that it is personally rewarding other than in a financial sense!
I cant wait... I cant wait to have some free time... At undergrad I had none. At least when you get home from work you can relax. When you have exams you have no free time.
Related discussions
- Magic circle law firms
- Can you do anything with a 2:1 in Oxford law?
- Magic Circle Law Firms
- are my grades good enough for MC firms?
- 2.2 with dreams of working at a magic circle law firm
- Uni of Westminster Law Prospects
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- MC Firms and US big law and A levels
- is Nottingham a respected Uni for MC firms
- Studying LLB with Business at Exeter
- How difficult is it to secure a city training contract in a prestigious law firm?
- Cournot Calculation help!
- Two Future Magic Circle Trainees: Ask Us Anything!
- Bristol law or Nottingham law
- Market structures help
- Economics Competition Help
- Is University of Bristol's Law School Good/Prestigious?
- Is switching law firms common?
- Vac scheme unlikely?
- Getting a MC/City firm TC with average GCSES and A Levels?
