"I was a 1PQE litigation associate at a City firm who left in September. Due to change in client circumstances (financial institutions), volume of work at my level plummeted. In other words, I was 'managed out'/pushed to resign.
"I could start immediately with a permanent job offer with a decent boutique firm, but I would have to take a pay cut of about 25%, and a job at a boutique is not what I would have liked in a perfect world. On the other hand, I have been contacting agents and have got an interview with a 'proper' City firm. The interview process would take several weeks. If I am lucky enough to get through, the boutique firm could have looked at somebody else.
"Should I hold out? I would like to think more litigation teams could be looking at CVs in the next couple of months. But then at 1PQE and out of a job, can I afford to be picky? What are the chances of me 'returning' to City practices after couple of years with a boutique?”
Click 'Comment on this article' to post your advice in confidence - or click here to share your wisdom on the Legal Week Wiki, where no topic is off limits. Rate or slate your firm and its rivals with our ground-breaking insider's guide to City law.
And remember, Career Clinic is only as good as the questions we receive, so email your career conundrums to community@legalweek.com.
For a litigator, you are not that sharp. Read my blog on this website about surviving the crisis, it is aimed at those that have been laid off. In essence, eat what you can kill - in a perfect world you would not even be applying to boutiques, but the fact that you are is indicative of how bad things are. Read my article - you don't have the liberty to mess about, take the boutique job and wait for the markets to recover before considering career remedial action i.e. move back into a respectable City firm.
http://www.legalweekblogs.com/legalvillage/2008/10/born_survivor_with_investment.html
On balance, I would agree with Investment Banker. In the run-up to Christmas, even the few firms that are hiring will be shutting down their recruitment operation until after the New Year, and then you would have been unemployed for four or five months - never good to have a big gap in your CV. I'd take the boutique job, it's a job, and it's not a million miles from what you would like to be doing. In a year or two, see if there are other openings for you. If you held out now, chances are that you will only get locum positions, and while they are often a good way of getting into a permanent job as the employer finds out that you are good, there is no assurance of anything turning up, especially this side of Christmas. Take the bird in the hand. M
It depends on which boutique firm you are talking about - some have good reputations in particular fields and some don't - people have frequently moved from those that do have good reputations into 'top' City firms. Investment Banker's article is for bankers and what he says about different level banks and the difficulties associated with moving from medium-rank banks to the elite doesn't apply to law firms necessarily. My advice is to assess the boutique firm in the light of the above - ie its reputation - but more importantly assess whether the kind of work it does and the kind of clients it has will weather the storm over the next year or more. Its work and clients may be a better bet - some did pretty well in the last recession.
This is an absolute no-brainer. Accept the boutique job and carry on with the application for the job you actually want. If you get the job you actually want, hand in your notice and move. If the other firm wants you, tell them at that stage and they'll understand why you had to make a short-term move to 'any port in a storm' and if they don't make you an offer, never mind, you've still got the boutique job.
No brainer. Take the job. You can still interview at the City firm and if they come good, move.
Whilst a quick move raises questions, you can always say the boutique firm was the wrong one for you, hint that they were rubbish etc. Odds are they would let you go quickly especially if you made it clear you weren't intending to pull your weight.
It may be a self-serving and shameful approach, but they would do the same to you if it suited them.
It all depends on which boutique firm, the quality of their lawyers and their client base. People who go for big firms for the sake of size are just typical risk-averse lawyers, ie rather sad. If you are entrepreneurial you have better options. I work for a boutique firm and PPP there is better than that of most top 20 firms - this is not unusual for decent City and West End boutiques. I am also earning a fair amount more than the colleagues I left behind at my old large City firm. I also work about 75% of their hours. My advice is to look at the book and not the cover. Alternatively play it safe and keep lining the pockets of the partners at the top of the equity in some large City firm or US firm - I am sure they will appreciate all the hard work their minions (including junior partners) are doing for them.
To be honest, with times as they are (and unlikely to get improve for a while!) I'd take a job in a boutique, never mind a boutique firm! Stop being so picky, and be grateful that someone wants to employ you!
To Boutique lawyer - there is no point telling the poster to be entrepreneurial if he is a risk-averse big firm man. Many of us have chosen a legal career because we are conservative. The poster is clearly wanting to get back into a similar environment to where he was. Hopefully he can achieve that in the medium to long term, although he might have to use a stepping stone to get back to where he wants to be.
Risk Averse, your post has reinforced my view that I am going to have a very happy and successful career in law - because the competition is so closed-minded! Hopefully one day I'll employ someone servient or even servile like you!
Entrepreneurial lawyer, I wonder if you have any staff retention issues?
Related Articles
Latest Jobs
