Offshore "Magic Circle" Forum

[Blagojevich]

Good morning. I was wondering if anyone has any information regarding the hiring practices of the so-called "offshore magic circle" firms (such as Appleby, Maples, Bedell, Walkers, etc.) with respect to U.S. trained attorneys. Specifically, do they hire U.S. attorneys? If so, how does one go about obtaining employment?

[BKing]

As far as I know, those offshore jurisdictions essentially follow British legal system so they hire UK/Australia/HK trained lawyers all the time but not US trained lawyers.

[deepseapartners]

As far as I know, those offshore jurisdictions essentially follow British legal system so they hire UK/Australia/HK trained lawyers all the time but not US trained lawyers.

Agreed. In my experience those sweet, sweet Cayman gigs go to Commonwealth lawyers.

[TheNavigator]

As far as I know, those offshore jurisdictions essentially follow British legal system so they hire UK/Australia/HK trained lawyers all the time but not US trained lawyers.

So they never hire us JDs at all? They seem to specialize in funds so they would never hire a JD with funds experience? Not interested in the Caribbean as much as London or Luxembourg (Channel Islands seem neat but maybe boring after it wears off).

[UnfrozenCaveman]

As far as I know, those offshore jurisdictions essentially follow British legal system so they hire UK/Australia/HK trained lawyers all the time but not US trained lawyers.

Agreed. In my experience those sweet, sweet Cayman gigs go to Commonwealth lawyers.

My understanding was that these are basically opinion factories.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

As far as I know, those offshore jurisdictions essentially follow British legal system so they hire UK/Australia/HK trained lawyers all the time but not US trained lawyers.

So they never hire us JDs at all? They seem to specialize in funds so they would never hire a JD with funds experience? Not interested in the Caribbean as much as London or Luxembourg (Channel Islands seem neat but maybe boring after it wears off).

Not sure about the hiring, but my experience with Cayman fund counsel is a few comments to the docs to conform to Cayman law (e.g., Cayman quirks in respect of dissolution, point out that gross negligence doesn't exists as a legal concept in Cayman, etc.) and then move on. Not exactly funds expertise per se.

[Anonymous User]

As far as I know, those offshore jurisdictions essentially follow British legal system so they hire UK/Australia/HK trained lawyers all the time but not US trained lawyers.

So they never hire us JDs at all? They seem to specialize in funds so they would never hire a JD with funds experience? Not interested in the Caribbean as much as London or Luxembourg (Channel Islands seem neat but maybe boring after it wears off).

There's nothing stopping you from applying. A few things, though:

1. The Caribbean and Channel Islands jurisdictions are pretty tight/closed off. In Cayman, from memory, you needed three years of Commonwealth post-qualification experience - I'm not sure if New York counted - to get a work permit to practice law. The Channel Islands involved exams to get admitted, I think. https://www.hamilton-recruitment.com/po ... -you-need/ has a bit of a summary. It's roughly correct in line with my understanding a few years ago; I make no other claim as to its accuracy.

If you have rights to reside in or are a citizen of the relevant jurisdiction this opens up - there are Caymanians at Maples, for instance, with US JDs and admission in, e.g., Massachusetts, but most would qualify in UK or Canada.

2. If you want to work for an offshore firm in a "non-offshore" jurisdiction (they tend to have offices in London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, and Ireland), the requirements might be softer: you can be deemed to practice under supervision of an admitted lawyer. Query whether you hit a bit of a career glass ceiling without admission in the jurisdiction whose law you're practicing.

3. Salaries tended (at least a few years ago) to be indexed to UK magic circle rates for UK-qualified lawyers - not bad, but lower than the Cravath Scale by a margin - and without the COLA that some US lawyers get in London. Of course, if you're in a low-tax/no tax jurisdiction and you're not a US citizen/green card holder, you have considerably more in pocket than you would in London, and those places are (sometimes only a little) cheaper than London and New York as places to live. The bonuses can be outsized compared with UK firms (where bonuses are still on the smaller side compared with the 50k+ you'll get at Cravath scale beyond the first few years).

In general, unless you have a hankering for island life or Hong Kong's charms (taxes be damned), there are fewer US-passport/green card holders in those places because the US government claims universal tax jurisdiction: anything you earn over $105,900 (as at 2019, based on certain websites) is still subject to US federal tax.

4. Someone's comment here that the work is less invigorating is true. It may less so the case in a place like Dubai or Singapore where a lot of people practicing law are outsiders and the lines between offshore and onshore firms are less stark, but if you're in London or Cayman/Jersey you can expect to be making the same ten comments on every document and perhaps occasionally marking up bylaw equivalents to match a shareholders' agreement someone else has drafted. Hence the focus on money; you're not going to one of these places to negotiate a cutting-edge LP approval right or reinvent equalisation formulae. But pay is generally secure, the people are more relaxed (and varied) than you might expect in midtown Manhattan or downtown DC, and you can have a life.

5. So with all that, if you hold a US JD and admission in a US state (but not Commonwealth admission) and want to work for an offshore firm, the options seem to me to be:

(a) Just apply (or talk to a recruiter) - Ed Strickland at Strickland Search is probably dominant in the market: http://stricklandsearch.com/. Absent UK qualification, this is probably for the "practice under supervision" route. Someone like Ed will talk you through options (b) and (c), too. If you're at a funds giant with 3+ years' experience already it's obviously a different conversation from having hardly any experience.

(b) To make your chances better, go through the English Qualified Lawyer Transfer Scheme test - UK-admitted lawyers are still dominant in the offshore world; the English Privy Council is still the highest court in a lot of places. (At some firms, historically, the question wasn't where you'd worked, but which college at Cambrige you'd attended.) Depending on the jurisdiction, you may be able to move to the offshore jurisdiction immediately following the test, or else you might have to wait a stint either at your current firm or at an offshore firm in a non-offshore jurisdiction.

(c) The dominant route (that seems to breed the most successful lawyers in offshore world) is (i) UK/Canadian/Australian/HK admission, (ii) time at a funds firm that is a big feeder for work to offshore firms (so think the English magic circle, Simmons and Simmons, Ashurst, Herbert Smith as pure English firms; the UK offices of Kirkland, Sidley, Ropes, STB, Baker & McKenzie, a few others; and the normal funds behemoths in NY/Chicago/DC/CA, like STB, Ropes, Debevoise, Fried Frank, Schulte, Sidley, Kirkland, etc). The idea would be that you go across with people who'll refer you work because they know you.

(d) You could also try to spend time in a non-offshore office and then transfer across, but they tend to hire for one office and making a case to move is a bit harder.

6. General note that the market is a little looser than it is, say, to become a funds or banking attorney at a Cravath-scale firm. Firms tend to be a little less pyramidal, helped by having like eight different levels of partnership at some places (with equity, where you take a chunk of the registered office and fund administration fees, being the goal). If there's work and they like you (and especially if you're coming from a place that feeds them work) they might make a space. Such a space might be in an office in a place like Dubai or Singapore, and they can work out admission later.

I hope that helps. Good luck.

[TheNavigator]

As far as I know, those offshore jurisdictions essentially follow British legal system so they hire UK/Australia/HK trained lawyers all the time but not US trained lawyers.

So they never hire us JDs at all? They seem to specialize in funds so they would never hire a JD with funds experience? Not interested in the Caribbean as much as London or Luxembourg (Channel Islands seem neat but maybe boring after it wears off).

There's nothing stopping you from applying. A few things, though:

1. The Caribbean and Channel Islands jurisdictions are pretty tight/closed off. In Cayman, from memory, you needed three years of Commonwealth post-qualification experience - I'm not sure if New York counted - to get a work permit to practice law. The Channel Islands involved exams to get admitted, I think. https://www.hamilton-recruitment.com/po ... -you-need/ has a bit of a summary. It's roughly correct in line with my understanding a few years ago; I make no other claim as to its accuracy.

If you have rights to reside in or are a citizen of the relevant jurisdiction this opens up - there are Caymanians at Maples, for instance, with US JDs and admission in, e.g., Massachusetts, but most would qualify in UK or Canada.

2. If you want to work for an offshore firm in a "non-offshore" jurisdiction (they tend to have offices in London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, and Ireland), the requirements might be softer: you can be deemed to practice under supervision of an admitted lawyer. Query whether you hit a bit of a career glass ceiling without admission in the jurisdiction whose law you're practicing.

3. Salaries tended (at least a few years ago) to be indexed to UK magic circle rates for UK-qualified lawyers - not bad, but lower than the Cravath Scale by a margin - and without the COLA that some US lawyers get in London. Of course, if you're in a low-tax/no tax jurisdiction and you're not a US citizen/green card holder, you have considerably more in pocket than you would in London, and those places are (sometimes only a little) cheaper than London and New York as places to live. The bonuses can be outsized compared with UK firms (where bonuses are still on the smaller side compared with the 50k+ you'll get at Cravath scale beyond the first few years).

In general, unless you have a hankering for island life or Hong Kong's charms (taxes be damned), there are fewer US-passport/green card holders in those places because the US government claims universal tax jurisdiction: anything you earn over $105,900 (as at 2019, based on certain websites) is still subject to US federal tax.

4. Someone's comment here that the work is less invigorating is true. It may less so the case in a place like Dubai or Singapore where a lot of people practicing law are outsiders and the lines between offshore and onshore firms are less stark, but if you're in London or Cayman/Jersey you can expect to be making the same ten comments on every document and perhaps occasionally marking up bylaw equivalents to match a shareholders' agreement someone else has drafted. Hence the focus on money; you're not going to one of these places to negotiate a cutting-edge LP approval right or reinvent equalisation formulae. But pay is generally secure, the people are more relaxed (and varied) than you might expect in midtown Manhattan or downtown DC, and you can have a life.

5. So with all that, if you hold a US JD and admission in a US state (but not Commonwealth admission) and want to work for an offshore firm, the options seem to me to be:

(a) Just apply (or talk to a recruiter) - Ed Strickland at Strickland Search is probably dominant in the market: http://stricklandsearch.com/. Absent UK qualification, this is probably for the "practice under supervision" route. Someone like Ed will talk you through options (b) and (c), too. If you're at a funds giant with 3+ years' experience already it's obviously a different conversation from having hardly any experience.

(b) To make your chances better, go through the English Qualified Lawyer Transfer Scheme test - UK-admitted lawyers are still dominant in the offshore world; the English Privy Council is still the highest court in a lot of places. (At some firms, historically, the question wasn't where you'd worked, but which college at Cambrige you'd attended.) Depending on the jurisdiction, you may be able to move to the offshore jurisdiction immediately following the test, or else you might have to wait a stint either at your current firm or at an offshore firm in a non-offshore jurisdiction.

(c) The dominant route (that seems to breed the most successful lawyers in offshore world) is (i) UK/Canadian/Australian/HK admission, (ii) time at a funds firm that is a big feeder for work to offshore firms (so think the English magic circle, Simmons and Simmons, Ashurst, Herbert Smith as pure English firms; the UK offices of Kirkland, Sidley, Ropes, STB, Baker & McKenzie, a few others; and the normal funds behemoths in NY/Chicago/DC/CA, like STB, Ropes, Debevoise, Fried Frank, Schulte, Sidley, Kirkland, etc). The idea would be that you go across with people who'll refer you work because they know you.

(d) You could also try to spend time in a non-offshore office and then transfer across, but they tend to hire for one office and making a case to move is a bit harder.

6. General note that the market is a little looser than it is, say, to become a funds or banking attorney at a Cravath-scale firm. Firms tend to be a little less pyramidal, helped by having like eight different levels of partnership at some places (with equity, where you take a chunk of the registered office and fund administration fees, being the goal). If there's work and they like you (and especially if you're coming from a place that feeds them work) they might make a space. Such a space might be in an office in a place like Dubai or Singapore, and they can work out admission later.

I hope that helps. Good luck.

Wow, great post! Very much appreciated.