Bidding on London Forum

[piccolittle]

can someone post a source of where it says 100k starting salary? I've done some research, and after 2 years of training, pay starts at 66k pounds.

That is for English lawyers doing the Training Contract system. Different thing for American associates.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. American Associates are paid on a completely different scale from English associates; otherwise they would all rather work in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

Benefits/Pay for one of the firms:

http://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_p ... elds%22%7D

[fatduck]

can someone post a source of where it says 100k starting salary? I've done some research, and after 2 years of training, pay starts at 66k pounds.

does anyone know how much this is in kilograms? thinking about applying to some london firms.

[Anonymous User]

can someone post a source of where it says 100k starting salary? I've done some research, and after 2 years of training, pay starts at 66k pounds.

does anyone know how much this is in kilograms? thinking about applying to some london firms.

About 160 in American dollars, but both currencies are volatile right now.

[Anonymous User]

This has been a very helpful thread. I just have 1 question: Is there a disadvantage to going to S over H for someone who hopes to work for a few years in London? I have spoken with European friends and they have said that HLS is held in much higher regard... But what difference does that make for someone there for the short term, who isn't trying to get their own clients or to become a partner?

I don't think it will make a huge difference in the short term. The people interviewing you know what the good schools are. And people in England know that Stanford is a good school. It's just that HARVARD is HARVARD. Generally outside of the US legal community, people are going to be impressed by Harvard then Standford/Yale then Princeton because they have no idea what other schools even have law schools. I went to Columbia undergrad and spend every summer I went home to London explaining that it was a school in New York, not the country. Got old. But professionally over there, it never held me back because anyone I actually wanted to hire me knew it was a good school.

Such bullshit. If you apply to good London/Paris firms, they all know YLS is better than HLS. Even people who aren't from the law schools ie kids who went to OxCam or ENS to study something other than law know that YLS is better. I remember when making my decision between YLS and HLS, I was debating heavily whether HLS would be better because of name recognition, and it was without a doubt that YLS was leagues better and all European attorney friends (and non-attorney friends) said I'd be stupid to go to HLS. The only country I can see HLS making a difference these days is China--they are still enamored by the Harvard brand.

[sophie316]

This has been a very helpful thread. I just have 1 question: Is there a disadvantage to going to S over H for someone who hopes to work for a few years in London? I have spoken with European friends and they have said that HLS is held in much higher regard... But what difference does that make for someone there for the short term, who isn't trying to get their own clients or to become a partner?

I don't think it will make a huge difference in the short term. The people interviewing you know what the good schools are. And people in England know that Stanford is a good school. It's just that HARVARD is HARVARD. Generally outside of the US legal community, people are going to be impressed by Harvard then Standford/Yale then Princeton because they have no idea what other schools even have law schools. I went to Columbia undergrad and spend every summer I went home to London explaining that it was a school in New York, not the country. Got old. But professionally over there, it never held me back because anyone I actually wanted to hire me knew it was a good school.

Such bullshit. If you apply to good London/Paris firms, they all know YLS is better than HLS. Even people who aren't from the law schools ie kids who went to OxCam or ENS to study something other than law know that YLS is better. I remember when making my decision between YLS and HLS, I was debating heavily whether HLS would be better because of name recognition, and it was without a doubt that YLS was leagues better and all European attorney friends (and non-attorney friends) said I'd be stupid to go to HLS. The only country I can see HLS making a difference these days is China--they are still enamored by the Harvard brand.

To clarify, meant the US legal community abroad ie any firms that you would be applying to as a US trained lawyer if you were looking abroad. I agree that they will, of course, know this. I meant lay people is all. If all of your non attorney European friends knew that YLS was WAY better than HLS, then good for them, I'm just saying that has not been true in my experience for non lawyers.

[Anonymous User]

I know that Shearman has a London-split summer option, and that they encourage associates to spend some time in that office.

Otherwise, everyone I know that got offers even at US Magic Circle offices had major international backgrounds (i.e. living abroad, language skills, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

Are these vacation days like the wink nudge "if you take it, you're fired", like the 4 weeks promised by Wachtell and such, or are they actual real vacation days that people take?

[Anonymous User]

Is London considered a good place to start your career the way NYC is? Everyone has said you need to start in NYC no matter what to get the best training. But is London considered the same?

bump?

[sophie316]

Is London considered a good place to start your career the way NYC is? Everyone has said you need to start in NYC no matter what to get the best training. But is London considered the same?

bump?

You're not going to get as good training or the same diversity of exposure to different kinds of deals in London. The number of US associates in any given office, be it in the mothership of a magic circle officer of a US outpost office in London, is going to be far far fewer than if you were in New York. The upside of this is that you are likely to get more responsibility more quickly. The downside is there are far fewer people to act as mentors and to go to with stupid questions. I would not advise starting out in London, or going there until you're a 3rd or 4th year and know what you're doing. I base this on splitting my summer last summer between the NY and London offices of a US firm. It may be different at a UK based firm, but I still think you can't really go wrong starting in NY but there are more chances to go wrong starting out there.

[piccolittle]

What about those students who did a UK degree but had bad marks? Are firms going to look at marks from undergrad and weigh those equally/more than law school grades? What about the NY offices of MC firms which have partners who qualified in the UK? Is there any way to spin this besides "I was a complete wastrel and didn't care about school until now"?

[Anonymous User]

Are these vacation days like the wink nudge "if you take it, you're fired", like the 4 weeks promised by Wachtell and such, or are they actual real vacation days that people take?

One associate at an MC firm told me that he was "forced" to take his vacation because he hadn't used it. He left for 3 weeks straight.

I've also heard that a lot of the vacation time is taken during August, when everyone is out of the office and deals just aren't happening.

But to answer the question, yes, from what I understand most people take the majority of the vacation time each year and that it is encouraged.

[sophie316]

What about those students who did a UK degree but had bad marks? Are firms going to look at marks from undergrad and weigh those equally/more than law school grades? What about the NY offices of MC firms which have partners who qualified in the UK? Is there any way to spin this besides "I was a complete wastrel and didn't care about school until now"?

Why would they know your undergrad grades? ONLY firm that I've ever heard of even asking for an undergrad transcript is Cravath.

[superflush]

Taxes are about 40% of anything over 30k GBP. And you really won't have to pay any US taxes (although you'll have to file). But depending on how extravagantly you want to live, you're probably on par with NY, or maybe a little better off. Plus you get the amazing benefits.

The foreign tax exemption is $91,500. So, if you are a US citizen making more than $91,500 outside the US, you will have to pay taxes on the exceeding amount.

[Anonymous User]

I know that Shearman has a London-split summer option, and that they encourage associates to spend some time in that office.

Otherwise, everyone I know that got offers even at US Magic Circle offices had major international backgrounds (i.e. living abroad, language skills, etc.).

Can anyone else comment on this? The 4 MC firms with a US presence seem to hire down to and even below median at lower T14s and have decent-sized NYC classes. Are they not a viable option for those without significant international experience? I would love to start in the NYC offices at one of these firms and potentially move to London in the future if capital markets is a good fit, but other than the standard study abroad in Europe during undergrad, I don't fit that major international background qualification.

[Anonymous User]

Are they not a viable option for those without significant international experience?

In the end, only one way to find out - apply and see if they like you enough to give you a shot.

The two offers at my school for Linklaters: student (a) was american but spoke business-proficiency Mandarin, student (b) was Chinese.

It is not that those without international experience cannot make it in. Rather, those with international experience are more likely to add value quickly in the short term and be a safer bet in the long term.

[Anonymous User]

Are they not a viable option for those without significant international experience?

In the end, only one way to find out - apply and see if they like you enough to give you a shot.

The two offers at my school for Linklaters: student (a) was american but spoke business-proficiency Mandarin, student (b) was Chinese.

It is not that those without international experience cannot make it in. Rather, those with international experience are more likely to add value quickly in the short term and be a safer bet in the long term.

Is speaking business-proficiency Mandarin enough? Should be able to read/write also?

[Anonymous User]

Are they not a viable option for those without significant international experience?

In the end, only one way to find out - apply and see if they like you enough to give you a shot.

The two offers at my school for Linklaters: student (a) was american but spoke business-proficiency Mandarin, student (b) was Chinese.

It is not that those without international experience cannot make it in. Rather, those with international experience are more likely to add value quickly in the short term and be a safer bet in the long term.

I was more thinking about where to bid them. Might not be worth placing them too high if the lower grade level is due to some international requirement, even for the NYC office.

[Anonymous User]

These forms look for international experience because they are looking for people with knowledge of upcoming business languages like mandarin or portuguese, or do they look for international experience because they want to be able to throw us to London at some point. International student here without knowledge of a hot language, but would not mind moving to London.

[piccolittle]

What about those students who did a UK degree but had bad marks? Are firms going to look at marks from undergrad and weigh those equally/more than law school grades? What about the NY offices of MC firms which have partners who qualified in the UK? Is there any way to spin this besides "I was a complete wastrel and didn't care about school until now"?

Why would they know your undergrad grades? ONLY firm that I've ever heard of even asking for an undergrad transcript is Cravath.

Isn't it conceivable that they see I went to a UK undergrad, get a partner from the same or similar school to interview me on a callback, and that person wants to see my undergrad transcript or asks how I did, especially if I'm expressing interest in returning to London? I suppose it doesn't help that I did a law degree there too.

[sophie316]

What about those students who did a UK degree but had bad marks? Are firms going to look at marks from undergrad and weigh those equally/more than law school grades? What about the NY offices of MC firms which have partners who qualified in the UK? Is there any way to spin this besides "I was a complete wastrel and didn't care about school until now"?

Why would they know your undergrad grades? ONLY firm that I've ever heard of even asking for an undergrad transcript is Cravath.

Isn't it conceivable that they see I went to a UK undergrad, get a partner from the same or similar school to interview me on a callback, and that person wants to see my undergrad transcript or asks how I did, especially if I'm expressing interest in returning to London? I suppose it doesn't help that I did a law degree there too.

You did law in the UK undergrad and are now doing a JD and trying to go back to the UK??

But yeah, actually I would assume you put whether you got a 1st, 2:1, 2:2 on your resume so its prob easier for that to come up in that case. I imagine they will put a lot more stock in your US grades though.

[Anonymous User]

Received a CB for two different London firms one is an overseas office of a V-10 firm think Cleary/Skadden/Kirkland and one is a Magic Circle firm think clifford chance/Freshfields/A&O if I were to get offers from both what is the better option? Is the Magic Circle better for promotion potential because it's the main office? Or maybe the US firm is better because if/when I transition back to the states I'll be at a stronger domestic firm? I know US attorneys in all of these offices do pretty much the same work but is there a difference in the level of complexity? Exit options? ANy help would be greatly appreciated.

[unc0mm0n1]

Taxes are about 40% of anything over 30k GBP. And you really won't have to pay any US taxes (although you'll have to file). But depending on how extravagantly you want to live, you're probably on par with NY, or maybe a little better off. Plus you get the amazing benefits.

The foreign tax exemption is $91,500. So, if you are a US citizen making more than $91,500 outside the US, you will have to pay taxes on the exceeding amount.

Most likely not. I used to do taxes in another EU country and the amount of tax you will pay to your host country will almost always supersede the tax you would have had to pay to the states and thus you will waive your US tax obligations. But you're still paying about 40% income tax which is just staggering.

edit: I just looked up NYC tax rate. It's pretty similar once you add in federal, state and city tax.

[Old Gregg]

Received a CB for two different London firms one is an overseas office of a V-10 firm think Cleary/Skadden/Kirkland and one is a Magic Circle firm think Clifford Chance/Freshfields/A&O if I were to get offers from both what is the better option? Is the Magic Circle better for promotion potential because it's the main office? Or maybe the US firm is better because if/when I transition back to the states I'll be at a stronger domestic firm? I know US attorneys in all of these offices do pretty much the same work but is there a difference in the level of complexity? Exit options? ANy help would be greatly appreciated.

Except for Freshfields and S&M, Magic Circle firms led the crop of layoffs two years ago.