Capital markets work in London? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I recently got offered a SA role at a V20 in London. The firm is fantastic and I've loved everyone I met from there, so I am probably going to be taking this offer up. That said, the office naturally focuses primarily on high yield and leveraged finance (with some equity work too), so I will be a bit limited in terms of my career development (not really a big problem since I am primarily interested in cap markets anyway). I was just wondering if anyone had any perspectives on working in London and what the options are for US-qualified attorneys to lateral into NY way down the line (or just transfer offices at the same firm for that matter).

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Decided to expand on the question and bump at the same time.

What are the exit options like? I've heard varying opinions on this.

[Anonymous User]

It's worth searching the forum for other threads on London, since they are out there and have good info.

It is very easy to return to the States from London, NY being the easiest, but of course that will depend on the hiring market at the time. Right now, for instance, any US-qualified capital markets associate in London at any level of seniority can get a job in any biglaw legal market in America, more or less. Even in less booming time this move is not unusual and any associate in London has seen many colleagues do it (especially juniors). Staying within your current firm is more typical the more senior you become.

Exit options to return to the States are overwhelmingly to another firm. Exiting to a US in-house role, government, or other legal job directly from a London office is unusual, and I haven't seen it, though I'm sure there are examples. Exiting to banks and financial institutions in London is more common, but of course you'll need to want to build a life in the UK to take an offer like that. Particularly post-Brexit it's hard to predict the trajectory of London as a world city.

If you just want to go to London for 2-3 years, pocket the COLA, and return to NY, that is a well trodden path and one I think you can feel pretty confident about.

[Anonymous User]

It's worth searching the forum for other threads on London, since they are out there and have good info.

It is very easy to return to the States from London, NY being the easiest, but of course that will depend on the hiring market at the time. Right now, for instance, any US-qualified capital markets associate in London at any level of seniority can get a job in any biglaw legal market in America, more or less. Even in less booming time this move is not unusual and any associate in London has seen many colleagues do it (especially juniors). Staying within your current firm is more typical the more senior you become.

Exit options to return to the States are overwhelmingly to another firm. Exiting to a US in-house role, government, or other legal job directly from a London office is unusual, and I haven't seen it, though I'm sure there are examples. Exiting to banks and financial institutions in London is more common, but of course you'll need to want to build a life in the UK to take an offer like that. Particularly post-Brexit it's hard to predict the trajectory of London as a world city.

If you just want to go to London for 2-3 years, pocket the COLA, and return to NY, that is a well trodden path and one I think you can feel pretty confident about.

Thanks! I've had a look at some of those prior threads and did manage to extract a few useful points. COLA is certainly a big draw, but what concerns me is that the office focuses really heavily on high yield and is very much on the underwriter side when it comes to equity cap markets. Assuming I do transfer to NY (which sounds like it's fairly easy to do, which is very nice to hear) when I reach mid-level, I will still likely be working on either of those. The problem is, based on what I've heard, that both of those practices kinda limit you to exiting into financial institutions (whereas issuer side ECM would make it easier for me to go in-house at a Fortune 500), which don't seem like optimal places to go in-house (I've heard it's a combo of bad hours and lower compensation than biglaw).

It's not that I don't see myself at this firm in the long term. I very much do, but the partnership track is notoriously difficult there and I want to have a safe and reliable fallback in case I'm unable to become partner/counsel.

Also, just as an aside (although related to the point about transferring over to NY), if I wanted to transfer offices at the same firm, would I need to have some very specific reasons or would they likely be all right with transferring me solely on the basis that there is a need for cap markets associates in NY?

[Anonymous User]

It's worth searching the forum for other threads on London, since they are out there and have good info.

It is very easy to return to the States from London, NY being the easiest, but of course that will depend on the hiring market at the time. Right now, for instance, any US-qualified capital markets associate in London at any level of seniority can get a job in any biglaw legal market in America, more or less. Even in less booming time this move is not unusual and any associate in London has seen many colleagues do it (especially juniors). Staying within your current firm is more typical the more senior you become.

Exit options to return to the States are overwhelmingly to another firm. Exiting to a US in-house role, government, or other legal job directly from a London office is unusual, and I haven't seen it, though I'm sure there are examples. Exiting to banks and financial institutions in London is more common, but of course you'll need to want to build a life in the UK to take an offer like that. Particularly post-Brexit it's hard to predict the trajectory of London as a world city.

If you just want to go to London for 2-3 years, pocket the COLA, and return to NY, that is a well trodden path and one I think you can feel pretty confident about.

Thanks! I've had a look at some of those prior threads and did manage to extract a few useful points. COLA is certainly a big draw, but what concerns me is that the office focuses really heavily on high yield and is very much on the underwriter side when it comes to equity cap markets. Assuming I do transfer to NY (which sounds like it's fairly easy to do, which is very nice to hear) when I reach mid-level, I will still likely be working on either of those. The problem is, based on what I've heard, that both of those practices kinda limit you to exiting into financial institutions (whereas issuer side ECM would make it easier for me to go in-house at a Fortune 500), which don't seem like optimal places to go in-house (I've heard it's a combo of bad hours and lower compensation than biglaw).

It's not that I don't see myself at this firm in the long term. I very much do, but the partnership track is notoriously difficult there and I want to have a safe and reliable fallback in case I'm unable to become partner/counsel.

Also, just as an aside (although related to the point about transferring over to NY), if I wanted to transfer offices at the same firm, would I need to have some very specific reasons or would they likely be all right with transferring me solely on the basis that there is a need for cap markets associates in NY?

You will definitely end up having unusual deal experience as a product of having worked exclusively in the London market as a US associate. The clients and filings you do will just be more foreign, and after 2-3 years you will have diverged from your peers back in the US, but not so much that it's a big problem for returning to the States. After six months working in the States, it's as if you never spent your first 2-3 years in London. Once you become more senior, that is less the case.

If you ever wanted to actually become partner (which isn't a goal you should hold yourself to - I think I read AmLaw 100 associate attrition is 50% at 2.5 years? Could be a dated stat at this point), London is a very bad place to try and do it as a US qualified associate. My guess is that US associates making their whole career in London and then being made partners is borderline zero. You would have to return to the States after a couple years (very likely NY, given Cap Markets), stick it out for another 8-10 years, do the normal firm politicking, and then maybe you make partner.

Others may have a different view, but I'd recommend law students accepting offers should only go to London 1) for the COLA, 2) because they have a personal reason to be in UK/Europe (e.g. family), or distant 3) general adventure and interest in being abroad. Diversity of work experience, partnership potential, etc are not good reasons to go to London.

Oh, and transferring offices depends much more on the vagaries of the people you happen to be working with. Some may resist having people transfer internally, others are more accommodating. Usually the more senior you get, the less the firm wants to lose your experience (midlevels are valuable), so they will grudgingly allow you to move. Having a good reason to move (a spouse with a job change is a common example) tends to make it easier.

[Anonymous User]

It's worth searching the forum for other threads on London, since they are out there and have good info.

It is very easy to return to the States from London, NY being the easiest, but of course that will depend on the hiring market at the time. Right now, for instance, any US-qualified capital markets associate in London at any level of seniority can get a job in any biglaw legal market in America, more or less. Even in less booming time this move is not unusual and any associate in London has seen many colleagues do it (especially juniors). Staying within your current firm is more typical the more senior you become.

Exit options to return to the States are overwhelmingly to another firm. Exiting to a US in-house role, government, or other legal job directly from a London office is unusual, and I haven't seen it, though I'm sure there are examples. Exiting to banks and financial institutions in London is more common, but of course you'll need to want to build a life in the UK to take an offer like that. Particularly post-Brexit it's hard to predict the trajectory of London as a world city.

If you just want to go to London for 2-3 years, pocket the COLA, and return to NY, that is a well trodden path and one I think you can feel pretty confident about.

Thanks! I've had a look at some of those prior threads and did manage to extract a few useful points. COLA is certainly a big draw, but what concerns me is that the office focuses really heavily on high yield and is very much on the underwriter side when it comes to equity cap markets. Assuming I do transfer to NY (which sounds like it's fairly easy to do, which is very nice to hear) when I reach mid-level, I will still likely be working on either of those. The problem is, based on what I've heard, that both of those practices kinda limit you to exiting into financial institutions (whereas issuer side ECM would make it easier for me to go in-house at a Fortune 500), which don't seem like optimal places to go in-house (I've heard it's a combo of bad hours and lower compensation than biglaw).

It's not that I don't see myself at this firm in the long term. I very much do, but the partnership track is notoriously difficult there and I want to have a safe and reliable fallback in case I'm unable to become partner/counsel.

Also, just as an aside (although related to the point about transferring over to NY), if I wanted to transfer offices at the same firm, would I need to have some very specific reasons or would they likely be all right with transferring me solely on the basis that there is a need for cap markets associates in NY?

You will definitely end up having unusual deal experience as a product of having worked exclusively in the London market as a US associate. The clients and filings you do will just be more foreign, and after 2-3 years you will have diverged from your peers back in the US, but not so much that it's a big problem for returning to the States. After six months working in the States, it's as if you never spent your first 2-3 years in London. Once you become more senior, that is less the case.

If you ever wanted to actually become partner (which isn't a goal you should hold yourself to - I think I read AmLaw 100 associate attrition is 50% at 2.5 years? Could be a dated stat at this point), London is a very bad place to try and do it as a US qualified associate. My guess is that US associates making their whole career in London and then being made partners is borderline zero. You would have to return to the States after a couple years (very likely NY, given Cap Markets), stick it out for another 8-10 years, do the normal firm politicking, and then maybe you make partner.

Others may have a different view, but I'd recommend law students accepting offers should only go to London 1) for the COLA, 2) because they have a personal reason to be in UK/Europe (e.g. family), or distant 3) general adventure and interest in being abroad. Diversity of work experience, partnership potential, etc are not good reasons to go to London.

Oh, and transferring offices depends much more on the vagaries of the people you happen to be working with. Some may resist having people transfer internally, others are more accommodating. Usually the more senior you get, the less the firm wants to lose your experience (midlevels are valuable), so they will grudgingly allow you to move. Having a good reason to move (a spouse with a job change is a common example) tends to make it easier.

Gotcha, thanks. What about the actual experience of working in London? Do you have any info on that? Is it at all different in terms of the hours or the work/life balance? Asking because the biggest reason I'd want to go to London would be to be closer to my family (they're in a continental EU country), but if I'm not going to have any more free time than I would in the US, I don't see a major advantage to it.

I've heard that the hours tend to be quite bad because you're working with counterparts in NY. Is that true?

[Anonymous User]

It's worth searching the forum for other threads on London, since they are out there and have good info.

It is very easy to return to the States from London, NY being the easiest, but of course that will depend on the hiring market at the time. Right now, for instance, any US-qualified capital markets associate in London at any level of seniority can get a job in any biglaw legal market in America, more or less. Even in less booming time this move is not unusual and any associate in London has seen many colleagues do it (especially juniors). Staying within your current firm is more typical the more senior you become.

Exit options to return to the States are overwhelmingly to another firm. Exiting to a US in-house role, government, or other legal job directly from a London office is unusual, and I haven't seen it, though I'm sure there are examples. Exiting to banks and financial institutions in London is more common, but of course you'll need to want to build a life in the UK to take an offer like that. Particularly post-Brexit it's hard to predict the trajectory of London as a world city.

If you just want to go to London for 2-3 years, pocket the COLA, and return to NY, that is a well trodden path and one I think you can feel pretty confident about.

Thanks! I've had a look at some of those prior threads and did manage to extract a few useful points. COLA is certainly a big draw, but what concerns me is that the office focuses really heavily on high yield and is very much on the underwriter side when it comes to equity cap markets. Assuming I do transfer to NY (which sounds like it's fairly easy to do, which is very nice to hear) when I reach mid-level, I will still likely be working on either of those. The problem is, based on what I've heard, that both of those practices kinda limit you to exiting into financial institutions (whereas issuer side ECM would make it easier for me to go in-house at a Fortune 500), which don't seem like optimal places to go in-house (I've heard it's a combo of bad hours and lower compensation than biglaw).

It's not that I don't see myself at this firm in the long term. I very much do, but the partnership track is notoriously difficult there and I want to have a safe and reliable fallback in case I'm unable to become partner/counsel.

Also, just as an aside (although related to the point about transferring over to NY), if I wanted to transfer offices at the same firm, would I need to have some very specific reasons or would they likely be all right with transferring me solely on the basis that there is a need for cap markets associates in NY?

You will definitely end up having unusual deal experience as a product of having worked exclusively in the London market as a US associate. The clients and filings you do will just be more foreign, and after 2-3 years you will have diverged from your peers back in the US, but not so much that it's a big problem for returning to the States. After six months working in the States, it's as if you never spent your first 2-3 years in London. Once you become more senior, that is less the case.

If you ever wanted to actually become partner (which isn't a goal you should hold yourself to - I think I read AmLaw 100 associate attrition is 50% at 2.5 years? Could be a dated stat at this point), London is a very bad place to try and do it as a US qualified associate. My guess is that US associates making their whole career in London and then being made partners is borderline zero. You would have to return to the States after a couple years (very likely NY, given Cap Markets), stick it out for another 8-10 years, do the normal firm politicking, and then maybe you make partner.

Others may have a different view, but I'd recommend law students accepting offers should only go to London 1) for the COLA, 2) because they have a personal reason to be in UK/Europe (e.g. family), or distant 3) general adventure and interest in being abroad. Diversity of work experience, partnership potential, etc are not good reasons to go to London.

Oh, and transferring offices depends much more on the vagaries of the people you happen to be working with. Some may resist having people transfer internally, others are more accommodating. Usually the more senior you get, the less the firm wants to lose your experience (midlevels are valuable), so they will grudgingly allow you to move. Having a good reason to move (a spouse with a job change is a common example) tends to make it easier.

Gotcha, thanks. What about the actual experience of working in London? Do you have any info on that? Is it at all different in terms of the hours or the work/life balance? Asking because the biggest reason I'd want to go to London would be to be closer to my family (they're in a continental EU country), but if I'm not going to have any more free time than I would in the US, I don't see a major advantage to it.

I've heard that the hours tend to be quite bad because you're working with counterparts in NY. Is that true?

You shouldn't expect to have better hours or work/life balance in London than you would in NY. The intensity of it will vary depending on your team and whatever the market happens to be doing when you start, but stereotypes of a more humane work culture in Europe and the UK do not extend to biglaw. Some UK-based associates say that the culture of respect for vacation and the expectation that you actually take it is better, but that has not been my impression. It is much easier to travel to Europe from London, though, to the degree that really matters to you and you'll be doing it frequently. As for the schedule, working with NY is indeed annoying given the timezones, but London-based deals are global, so it's really the deals based in Australia/Asia that cause the worst headaches.

[Anonymous User]

It's worth searching the forum for other threads on London, since they are out there and have good info.

It is very easy to return to the States from London, NY being the easiest, but of course that will depend on the hiring market at the time. Right now, for instance, any US-qualified capital markets associate in London at any level of seniority can get a job in any biglaw legal market in America, more or less. Even in less booming time this move is not unusual and any associate in London has seen many colleagues do it (especially juniors). Staying within your current firm is more typical the more senior you become.

Exit options to return to the States are overwhelmingly to another firm. Exiting to a US in-house role, government, or other legal job directly from a London office is unusual, and I haven't seen it, though I'm sure there are examples. Exiting to banks and financial institutions in London is more common, but of course you'll need to want to build a life in the UK to take an offer like that. Particularly post-Brexit it's hard to predict the trajectory of London as a world city.

If you just want to go to London for 2-3 years, pocket the COLA, and return to NY, that is a well trodden path and one I think you can feel pretty confident about.

Thanks! I've had a look at some of those prior threads and did manage to extract a few useful points. COLA is certainly a big draw, but what concerns me is that the office focuses really heavily on high yield and is very much on the underwriter side when it comes to equity cap markets. Assuming I do transfer to NY (which sounds like it's fairly easy to do, which is very nice to hear) when I reach mid-level, I will still likely be working on either of those. The problem is, based on what I've heard, that both of those practices kinda limit you to exiting into financial institutions (whereas issuer side ECM would make it easier for me to go in-house at a Fortune 500), which don't seem like optimal places to go in-house (I've heard it's a combo of bad hours and lower compensation than biglaw).

It's not that I don't see myself at this firm in the long term. I very much do, but the partnership track is notoriously difficult there and I want to have a safe and reliable fallback in case I'm unable to become partner/counsel.

Also, just as an aside (although related to the point about transferring over to NY), if I wanted to transfer offices at the same firm, would I need to have some very specific reasons or would they likely be all right with transferring me solely on the basis that there is a need for cap markets associates in NY?

You will definitely end up having unusual deal experience as a product of having worked exclusively in the London market as a US associate. The clients and filings you do will just be more foreign, and after 2-3 years you will have diverged from your peers back in the US, but not so much that it's a big problem for returning to the States. After six months working in the States, it's as if you never spent your first 2-3 years in London. Once you become more senior, that is less the case.

If you ever wanted to actually become partner (which isn't a goal you should hold yourself to - I think I read AmLaw 100 associate attrition is 50% at 2.5 years? Could be a dated stat at this point), London is a very bad place to try and do it as a US qualified associate. My guess is that US associates making their whole career in London and then being made partners is borderline zero. You would have to return to the States after a couple years (very likely NY, given Cap Markets), stick it out for another 8-10 years, do the normal firm politicking, and then maybe you make partner.

Others may have a different view, but I'd recommend law students accepting offers should only go to London 1) for the COLA, 2) because they have a personal reason to be in UK/Europe (e.g. family), or distant 3) general adventure and interest in being abroad. Diversity of work experience, partnership potential, etc are not good reasons to go to London.

Oh, and transferring offices depends much more on the vagaries of the people you happen to be working with. Some may resist having people transfer internally, others are more accommodating. Usually the more senior you get, the less the firm wants to lose your experience (midlevels are valuable), so they will grudgingly allow you to move. Having a good reason to move (a spouse with a job change is a common example) tends to make it easier.

Gotcha, thanks. What about the actual experience of working in London? Do you have any info on that? Is it at all different in terms of the hours or the work/life balance? Asking because the biggest reason I'd want to go to London would be to be closer to my family (they're in a continental EU country), but if I'm not going to have any more free time than I would in the US, I don't see a major advantage to it.

I've heard that the hours tend to be quite bad because you're working with counterparts in NY. Is that true?

You shouldn't expect to have better hours or work/life balance in London than you would in NY. The intensity of it will vary depending on your team and whatever the market happens to be doing when you start, but stereotypes of a more humane work culture in Europe and the UK do not extend to biglaw. Some UK-based associates say that the culture of respect for vacation and the expectation that you actually take it is better, but that has not been my impression. It is much easier to travel to Europe from London, though, to the degree that really matters to you and you'll be doing it frequently. As for the schedule, working with NY is indeed annoying given the timezones, but London-based deals are global, so it's really the deals based in Australia/Asia that cause the worst headaches.

I guess that leaves 3 real reasons from my perspective:
1) COLA
2) Liking the team
3) Family proximity (less important going off of what you said since I won't get more vacation time anyways, although still somewhat relevant)

I'm not sure if you can help on this front, but is COLA really worth it? I've spent some time in London and I know it's a comically expensive place to live in, so I'm not sure if COLA is really any advantage. I'm assuming it's enough to mitigate the extra tax burden and maybe the extra living costs, but it doesn't seem like it does much else. Is it more significant than that to the point where it actually nets you substantially more?

Honestly, the corollary to reason 2) is that I like the idea of a small office and just knowing everybody. Would you say there are any downsides to working in an environment like that?

[Anonymous User]

I guess that leaves 3 real reasons from my perspective:
1) COLA
2) Liking the team
3) Family proximity (less important going off of what you said since I won't get more vacation time anyways, although still somewhat relevant)

Honestly, the corollary to reason 2) is that I like the idea of a small office and just knowing everybody. Would you say there are any downsides to working in an environment like that?

Not the OP that you're responding to, but here's my take:

1. I've actually crunched the math on this, and yes COLA does lead to substantial additional savings, but if money were the true goal, TX beats London (even with the COLA).

2. I'm not sure how much weight you should put into this. Everyone is on their best behavior toward potential SAs. Further, a significant portion of the people that you meet now are liable to be gone by the time that you arrive as a first-year. A small office likely has less slack in the workforce, which means there's no one to do the work if you turn it down, which means people are more likely to pressure you into taking a deal even if you say no (or you'll passively feel pressured to take on more work and never say no). I think that that significantly increases the risk of burnout, but that's just me. I work in a big office, and I love the ability to hide out and do a 160-180 hour month once in a while.

3. This is undoubtedly an advantage.

[Anonymous User]

I guess that leaves 3 real reasons from my perspective:
1) COLA
2) Liking the team
3) Family proximity (less important going off of what you said since I won't get more vacation time anyways, although still somewhat relevant)

Honestly, the corollary to reason 2) is that I like the idea of a small office and just knowing everybody. Would you say there are any downsides to working in an environment like that?

Not the OP that you're responding to, but here's my take:

1. I've actually crunched the math on this, and yes COLA does lead to substantial additional savings, but if money were the true goal, TX beats London (even with the COLA).

2. I'm not sure how much weight you should put into this. Everyone is on their best behavior toward potential SAs. Further, a significant portion of the people that you meet now are liable to be gone by the time that you arrive as a first-year. A small office likely has less slack in the workforce, which means there's no one to do the work if you turn it down, which means people are more likely to pressure you into taking a deal even if you say no (or you'll passively feel pressured to take on more work and never say no). I think that that significantly increases the risk of burnout, but that's just me. I work in a big office, and I love the ability to hide out and do a 160-180 hour month once in a while.

3. This is undoubtedly an advantage.

1. Kind of a weird question, but do you only get COLA if you're from the US originally? If I've lived in London for a little bit, then went to the US for law school, and if I then take up a role in London, will I still be eligible for COLA? Also, how significant of an advantage is it, if you don't mind me asking? My other offer is from a firm that pays above-market bonuses, so I'm unsure whether that outweighs it.

2. Would you say there are discernible advantages to a smaller office, though?