|
adamcartney123
|
Posted - 04 February 2010 18:06
I have a query about applying to US firms in London for a tc. I know they have smaller intakes so does this make them harder to get into than UK firms? Are they looking for something different than UK firms?
Any advice you could give would be great.
Thanks
Adam
|
|
ratypus2
|
Generally, US firms will be harder to secure a TC at than firms with larger intakes. That is no inherent reflection on the quality of the people applying / getting in and I am not intending to start a (very dull) debate about that. It is just a numbers game. You need to get in early and impress because once the 5-10 spots have gone, they are gone.
Some US firms may be more focused on academics than UK ones (including MC firms) - they may want a more detailed breakdown of your marks and will probably weight top grades slightly more heavily than UK firms. Also, because of the nature of the training (small teams; lots of responsibility), US firms are generally looking for people who can show that they are self-reliant and proactive. They will not have the time to spoon-feed you, and cannot afford to have any hangers-on. People will try and tell you the same about MC firms but it is not true - the logistics of scale mean that you can afford to have 90 proactive self-starters and 10 muppet photocopy / pagination gimps in your trainee intake. A US firm with 5 trainees cannot afford that.
Finally, they will be trying to root out people who aren't absolutely committed to the job. US firms, even more than MC firms, tend to demand 24/7/365 availability if the need arises. They will want people they can give a Blackberry to, call anytime of the day or night and send off to Wolla-Wolla land at a moment's notice. They will be making damn sure you are not a part-timer.
|
|
BuzzAldrinsSpacehoppers
|
If you haven't got great GCSE's they won't even get to reading your A Level results.
|
|
shenmue02
|
The point about smaller intakes is spot-on. Their smaller intakes means they haven't got space to take a risk on a candidate who doesn't 100% fit their criteria.
You're also much more likely to get screwed on hours.
On the plus side, if you think you can be thrown into the pool and swim (rather than sink) you'll find it much easier to shine than as part of a 50+ intake whilst the names of clients you'll work for are just as big as the MC.
Personally, if you're lucky enough to have a choice between American and MC - I'd put it down to this Question:
Are you looking for a TC that looks good on your CV before you move on to do more interesting things with your life? Or are you looking for a firm you can stay at perhaps up to partner level?
If you're in the first category - go to MC as the name recognition in the UK is better and the clients are more likely to be FTSE-100.
If on the other hand you want to work hard and become a millionaire partner, go to the US firm.
|
|
Anais
|
I'm also looking to apply to American firms, currently doing a cover letter for White & Case, does anyone have any opinions on them?
|
|
TheFish
|
My impression is that the very best applicants tend to go to MC firms. People with a brilliant first from a posh Oxbridge college, who can take their pick. Of course they may not be brilliant practical lawyers, but they tend to play safe by going to the biggest firms with the best known brands.
But the MC firms need to fill hundreds of TC vacancies a year between them, so they have to bulk up with loads of normal mortals too.
If you are a normal mortal, 2(1) from UCL or Bristol say, then you may have a better chance of getting into a MC firm than a US firm. The ratio of applicants to jobs at US firms can be as high as 200:1, whereas at MC firms it is more like 20:1. You do the math.
PS If you found that last sentence really irritating then perhaps you should avoid the US firms.
Big advantages of US firms are (1) smaller numbers, so you get to know people better (2) possibly more early responsibility (3) more entrepreneurial less bureaucratic culture, if that is important to you.
|
|
BuzzAldrinsSpacehoppers
|
"less bureaucratic culture"
hahahahahahahahahahahaaa
|
|
TheFish
|
You aint never worked at Linklaters have you Buzz?
|
|
BuzzAldrinsSpacehoppers
|
No but I've been a partner in a UK firm and in the London office of a US firm.
|
|
donaldduck
|
depends on the US firm you are talking about:
W&C, Latham,etc are all about the academics
other US firms prefer experience- law or otherwise and don't care about results that much but are less likely to touch a wet behind the ears grad
|
|
TheFish
|
So what was the US firm I wonder Buzz? In my experience the US firms are focused on hours and not much else, and that means you don't get us much flim flam as in some big London firms.
Of course there are lots of different US firms these days.
|
|
BuzzAldrinsSpacehoppers
|
TBF the bureaucracy I am thinking of is not purely the internal "voluntary" bureaucracy, a lot of it part of needing to educate (ie make them understand it is not optional) your US counterparts about compulsory issues such as our regulatory environment - SARs/MLRs/UK accounting principles applying to a UK LLP and how they differ from a US LLP/how we would respond to client audit comfort letter requests/legal opinions etc. All this layered over the US bureaucracy is pretty hard work.
Wot sort of firm? Finance and lit.
|
|
anotherbrickinthewall
|
The simple answer to the opening question is (obviously) 'yes'. By virtue of the fact that they generally receive more applications/place than the big UK firms, it is 'harder' to obtain a TC with a big US firm. Then again, if you're a good enough applicant (and I don't just mean on paper), you shouldn't find it too hard to receive offers from the MC or from the US firms.
However, I disagree quite stongly with some of the stereotypes being perpetuated in this thread. Yes, the US firms generally look for very good grades. Yes, they generally expect their lawyers to work extremely long hours. Yes, your BlackBerry will become an integral part of your body. But these things are now also true (to almost the same extent) of the MC. Also, to say 'US firms this' and 'US firms that' is plain silly. There are major differences in the recruitment strategies and firm cultures of all of the big American firms in London. Some view London as nothing more than an offshoot of NY, whereas some view it as an important market in its own right. Some are obsessed with the academic credentials of applicants, whereas some are much more interested in their personalities.
I think that the only way to decide where you want to go (and the only way to actually get yourself there) is to look at each firm separately, weigh up the pros and cons of each one, and make a (relatively) informed decision. I happen to work for a US firm, but I didn't decide to 'work for a US firm' and take the first offer that came along. It was just the most appealing of the firms that offered me a TC.
|
|
H. Stamper
|
OP - US Firms do generally have more of a work culture, American Partners do not take 5/6 weeks of holiday every year and will try and respond faster to to clients which filters down the chain in terms of workload - but this is a GOOD THING when you are a trainee. You will get less menial tasks working for American senior lawyers as these tasks are normally done by paralegals in US firms not first year associates (trainee equivs). It might sound obvious but it really helps to make friends with your US colleagues if you know a bit about the US (i.e geography/sport etc.) and are not particularly anti-American in your political views. Overall I would recommend it but agree with one of the above posts that it very much depends on which firm - there is a big difference from Mid-Atlantic firms with a very substantial London office (e.g W&C, L&W) and other firms which really just offer NY support to the firms clients/deals in London.
|
|
Durham_
|
I would pick a US firm all the way. I had an interview with one but did not get it!
a shame but have to move on!!!!!
|