London laterals - bad career move? Forum

[Anonymous User]

If I don't have a compelling reason (family/parters in London) to move to London but I'm lateraling to London only because I love living in London (studied abroad in law school) and traveling + COLA, is it a bad career decision?

I've heard the COLA is paid out as a bribe for London laterals who won't have too many exit options; HY Cap market work is pretty niche and going back to the US is not very straightforward. Is this true?

[Anonymous User]

I would be very reluctant to do this unless you're planning to stick around there for the rest of your career. It will be very difficult to come back after doing a few years of work that will be barely applicable to anything you can do states.

Go there on vacation, even WFH there if you want while you can, but making the move is a huge commitment.

[Anonymous User]

I would be very reluctant to do this unless you're planning to stick around there for the rest of your career. It will be very difficult to come back after doing a few years of work that will be barely applicable to anything you can do states.

Go there on vacation, even WFH there if you want while you can, but making the move is a huge commitment.

OP here. I am getting conflicting advice... some have told me it’s not that hard to come back as long as you want to come back as a mid level (2-3 yrs in London) Can you please explain why it’d be so difficult to come back?

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I am getting conflicting advice... some have told me it’s not that hard to come back as long as you want to come back as a mid level (2-3 yrs in London) Can you please explain why it’d be so difficult to come back?

- Different skill-sets. As a junior-ish London associate you might be spending more time managing clients and lawyers in the jurisdiction of the deal, while in NY there'd be an expectation that you're doing substantive work and answering the questions in the governing law. Basically you'll face a perception (whether or not justified) that you might not have done *as much* regular deal work as someone grinding in head office. (This may be less the case in capital markets, where I have seen people come back from London; less so in M&A and finance, unless a place is desperate.)

- Type and quality of deals. Still the case that UK corporates will go to Magic/Silver Circle firms first - normally cheaper, probably equivalent or better cross-border experience, many have US practices if there's international security or a US debt offering required. If you're a US corporate/PE fund in London you might use your regular US firm, but not necessarily for everything. (You don't need Cravath for your third bond offer in a year once they've drafted docs on the first.) It's why you still read about Magic Circle partners moving to Kirkland and Skadden for GBP 10mn/year checks - the US firms know they're competing for market share for English law work (since with they all now seem to practice UK law), and otherwise are managing institutional clients.

(As an aside, we'll have to see how COVID shakes things out, but there may be even less perception that there's a "need" for US lawyers in London - already the case in groups like funds at some firms, which had cross-border teams for the same client. US lawyers in London were required because clients wanted to meet all their lawyers in the flesh. That expectation may no longer be relevant when people realize that they can get the same service from an NY office, and hence firms may decide they don't need to pay COLA any more.)

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I have a similar question and I'd love to get some TLS opinions/advice on it: replace London with HK or Singapore. Is this a good move? I want to live in Asia long-term and enjoy CM work. In fact, the only reason I started in NY was that I heard it's the path of least resistance in terms of lateralling to Asia. If there was a way to go directly there, I would have chosen that path in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I am getting conflicting advice... some have told me it’s not that hard to come back as long as you want to come back as a mid level (2-3 yrs in London) Can you please explain why it’d be so difficult to come back?

- Different skill-sets. As a junior-ish London associate you might be spending more time managing clients and lawyers in the jurisdiction of the deal, while in NY there'd be an expectation that you're doing substantive work and answering the questions in the governing law. Basically you'll face a perception (whether or not justified) that you might not have done *as much* regular deal work as someone grinding in head office. (This may be less the case in capital markets, where I have seen people come back from London; less so in M&A and finance, unless a place is desperate.)

- Type and quality of deals. Still the case that UK corporates will go to Magic/Silver Circle firms first - normally cheaper, probably equivalent or better cross-border experience, many have US practices if there's international security or a US debt offering required. If you're a US corporate/PE fund in London you might use your regular US firm, but not necessarily for everything. (You don't need Cravath for your third bond offer in a year once they've drafted docs on the first.) It's why you still read about Magic Circle partners moving to Kirkland and Skadden for GBP 10mn/year checks - the US firms know they're competing for market share for English law work (since with they all now seem to practice UK law), and otherwise are managing institutional clients.

(As an aside, we'll have to see how COVID shakes things out, but there may be even less perception that there's a "need" for US lawyers in London - already the case in groups like funds at some firms, which had cross-border teams for the same client. US lawyers in London were required because clients wanted to meet all their lawyers in the flesh. That expectation may no longer be relevant when people realize that they can get the same service from an NY office, and hence firms may decide they don't need to pay COLA any more.)

My experience in London was that 50%+ of all US qualified associates did CM work, and there was were unpredictable clusters of a a few associates at different firms doing things like WCC or M&A, but in reality if you know a US qualified associate lived in London you could relatively safely assume they churned high yield bonds.

I don't think the premier NY firms really compete or try to compete much for UK business, which does goes to the magic circle firms, but rather the London office serve as the US firm's outpost for handling work that has only ancillary US legal connections (e.g. some French company buying some company in Turkey or something).

All my friends and peers had a relatively easy time lateraling back to the States, but they were all relatively junior. I'm not sure anyone more senior really wanted to, they had put down roots in London, and for better or worse had homes/partners/relationships they didn't want to sever.

There's a lot of speculation that COLA will be cut in part or entirely, and it has been at some places already. This follows the reality that it's an open business case whether it makes sense to have US associates in London at all. On top of that, London is much less fun as an associate than as an exchange student, because you're too busy to get much out of it.

I'd tend to caution against going to London without a compelling reason like family generally, but just one more voice.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I am getting conflicting advice... some have told me it’s not that hard to come back as long as you want to come back as a mid level (2-3 yrs in London) Can you please explain why it’d be so difficult to come back?

- Different skill-sets. As a junior-ish London associate you might be spending more time managing clients and lawyers in the jurisdiction of the deal, while in NY there'd be an expectation that you're doing substantive work and answering the questions in the governing law. Basically you'll face a perception (whether or not justified) that you might not have done *as much* regular deal work as someone grinding in head office. (This may be less the case in capital markets, where I have seen people come back from London; less so in M&A and finance, unless a place is desperate.)

- Type and quality of deals. Still the case that UK corporates will go to Magic/Silver Circle firms first - normally cheaper, probably equivalent or better cross-border experience, many have US practices if there's international security or a US debt offering required. If you're a US corporate/PE fund in London you might use your regular US firm, but not necessarily for everything. (You don't need Cravath for your third bond offer in a year once they've drafted docs on the first.) It's why you still read about Magic Circle partners moving to Kirkland and Skadden for GBP 10mn/year checks - the US firms know they're competing for market share for English law work (since with they all now seem to practice UK law), and otherwise are managing institutional clients.

(As an aside, we'll have to see how COVID shakes things out, but there may be even less perception that there's a "need" for US lawyers in London - already the case in groups like funds at some firms, which had cross-border teams for the same client. US lawyers in London were required because clients wanted to meet all their lawyers in the flesh. That expectation may no longer be relevant when people realize that they can get the same service from an NY office, and hence firms may decide they don't need to pay COLA any more.)

My experience in London was that 50%+ of all US qualified associates did CM work, and there was were unpredictable clusters of a a few associates at different firms doing things like WCC or M&A, but in reality if you know a US qualified associate lived in London you could relatively safely assume they churned high yield bonds.

I don't think the premier NY firms really compete or try to compete much for UK business, which does goes to the magic circle firms, but rather the London office serve as the US firm's outpost for handling work that has only ancillary US legal connections (e.g. some French company buying some company in Turkey or something).

All my friends and peers had a relatively easy time lateraling back to the States, but they were all relatively junior. I'm not sure anyone more senior really wanted to, they had put down roots in London, and for better or worse had homes/partners/relationships they didn't want to sever.

There's a lot of speculation that COLA will be cut in part or entirely, and it has been at some places already. This follows the reality that it's an open business case whether it makes sense to have US associates in London at all. On top of that, London is much less fun as an associate than as an exchange student, because you're too busy to get much out of it.

I'd tend to caution against going to London without a compelling reason like family generally, but just one more voice.

Would you say lateraling back stateside as a 4th year, having done HY bonds in London for 3 years, would be rather difficult? When you say your friends/peers were relatively junior, were they 3rd year? I just don't know how lateralling back to the US as a junior would look like because it'd be like job-hopping every 1-2 years.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I am getting conflicting advice... some have told me it’s not that hard to come back as long as you want to come back as a mid level (2-3 yrs in London) Can you please explain why it’d be so difficult to come back?

- Different skill-sets. As a junior-ish London associate you might be spending more time managing clients and lawyers in the jurisdiction of the deal, while in NY there'd be an expectation that you're doing substantive work and answering the questions in the governing law. Basically you'll face a perception (whether or not justified) that you might not have done *as much* regular deal work as someone grinding in head office. (This may be less the case in capital markets, where I have seen people come back from London; less so in M&A and finance, unless a place is desperate.)

- Type and quality of deals. Still the case that UK corporates will go to Magic/Silver Circle firms first - normally cheaper, probably equivalent or better cross-border experience, many have US practices if there's international security or a US debt offering required. If you're a US corporate/PE fund in London you might use your regular US firm, but not necessarily for everything. (You don't need Cravath for your third bond offer in a year once they've drafted docs on the first.) It's why you still read about Magic Circle partners moving to Kirkland and Skadden for GBP 10mn/year checks - the US firms know they're competing for market share for English law work (since with they all now seem to practice UK law), and otherwise are managing institutional clients.

(As an aside, we'll have to see how COVID shakes things out, but there may be even less perception that there's a "need" for US lawyers in London - already the case in groups like funds at some firms, which had cross-border teams for the same client. US lawyers in London were required because clients wanted to meet all their lawyers in the flesh. That expectation may no longer be relevant when people realize that they can get the same service from an NY office, and hence firms may decide they don't need to pay COLA any more.)

My experience in London was that 50%+ of all US qualified associates did CM work, and there was were unpredictable clusters of a a few associates at different firms doing things like WCC or M&A, but in reality if you know a US qualified associate lived in London you could relatively safely assume they churned high yield bonds.

I don't think the premier NY firms really compete or try to compete much for UK business, which does goes to the magic circle firms, but rather the London office serve as the US firm's outpost for handling work that has only ancillary US legal connections (e.g. some French company buying some company in Turkey or something).

All my friends and peers had a relatively easy time lateraling back to the States, but they were all relatively junior. I'm not sure anyone more senior really wanted to, they had put down roots in London, and for better or worse had homes/partners/relationships they didn't want to sever.

There's a lot of speculation that COLA will be cut in part or entirely, and it has been at some places already. This follows the reality that it's an open business case whether it makes sense to have US associates in London at all. On top of that, London is much less fun as an associate than as an exchange student, because you're too busy to get much out of it.

I'd tend to caution against going to London without a compelling reason like family generally, but just one more voice.

Would you say lateraling back stateside as a 4th year, having done HY bonds in London for 3 years, would be rather difficult? When you say your friends/peers were relatively junior, were they 3rd year? I just don't know how lateralling back to the US as a junior would look like because it'd be like job-hopping every 1-2 years.

The people I knew were 2-3 year juniors. I think if you're only 2-3 years in, your law firm process knowledge is basically transferrable anywhere, you're primarily being socialized into law firm life. From year 4 I think it would start to get harder because the expectations of substantive knowledge would be different. It'd be cautious at that point. As to the job hopping, I don't know how that really matters!