Career Clinic: Should I ditch my magic circle TC and do the NY Bar?

I'd stick out the two years at the MC firm and become UK-qualified first. You get sponsored for the LPC and can have a MC name on the CV after two years. OK so you wait a little longer for the huge salary, but you have security (as there is no guarantee that US firms would recruit at the moment) and can then look to take the NY Bar. You would then be dual-qualified and command an even higher salary.

MC trainee -24 Aug 2009 | 11:01

Waste of time

US firms are not hiring at the moment, especially not foreign students for which they have to make a work permit application (which causes $$$ and which has become longer and more expensive thanks to the Obama administration and their protectionism).

Bo -24 Aug 2009 | 11:33

Even if US firms were hiring, I doubt you would even get an interview without a three-year JD from a top US law school.

Anonymous -24 Aug 2009 | 12:31

Admittedly in the current market, US firms may not be hiring etc. etc.

But as a more general point, surely there is a fair point being made here. The New York Bar is considerably shorter than the LPC, and whereas UK firms require two years of training, US firms are willing to make new joiners straight-out associates...

Why not go this alternative route in the future when the market recovers? Surely, if more graduates knew about this possibility, it would be taken?

In addition, the need to become UK-qualified is surely becoming less necessary in a world where we can live anywhere, travel anywhere and practise anywhere we so choose...

Anon -24 Aug 2009 | 12:32

The route that you suggest is highly risky as NY firms even in good times do not hire foreign lawyers without LLMs from a US law school, even if you take the NY Bar. Also, most US LLMs that are hired are only hired for a year as a "foreign associate". The route that you suggest is risky in good times and right now with an abundance of US law graduates and few positions available, US firms are certainly not going to look at any student who does not have a US JD.

Anonymous -24 Aug 2009 | 12:45

He has secured a training contract with a MC firm and wants to ditch it in the middle of a recession, the size of which is unprecedented since the 1930s with unemployment rates at a record high, to take an exam in the hope that he will pass and then apply to US law firms and convince them he is a better recruit than someone with a JD from Harvard or Stanford. Riiiiiight.....

Investment Banker -24 Aug 2009 | 12:45

Investment Banker, clearly the person who posted this is not saying that at all: he merely asks in hindsight whether he "might not have been better" going an alternate route. He is looking at people who have not already taken on the LPC etc.

I don't think there is any harm in debating what the best route into law is. Just because we are in the middle of a recession does not mean that all debate amongst graduates as to their ideal career paths should be put on hold...

Anonymous -24 Aug 2009 | 13:01

LPC students are brilliant in their naive belief that no-one has thought of their genius "qualify in another jurisdiction and do the QLTT" bingo schemes before. The training contract exists for a reason and no, it's not just photocopying. Getting jobs (especially in the current market) is about having the right experience and not about how many conversion exams you've sat. There are thousands of people in the US with Ivy-league JDs who have actually studied actual US law for actual three years and paid a huge amount of money for it. What makes you think a US firm would pick someone who has just passed the NY Bar exam (which is not THAT hard) and no experience over someone with an undergraduate degree and a JD from the States?

Law123 -24 Aug 2009 | 13:21

Yeah pack it in, do that joke of a course, and see how far you get.

Garden Hedge Manager -24 Aug 2009 | 13:37

Hmmm...so the question being asked is whether this person should give up something that is pretty good (an MC training contract in the middle of a recession) on the off-chance that he/she might get something better...namely, an offer to join an NY firm as an associate. And all that only *if* this person passes the NY Bar and *if* the firm in question doesn't feel a twinge of doubt about the strength of the LPC vs a JD from a top US law school.

This is such an odd question.

Even more odd are the two anonymous comments that don't dismiss this as woefully optimistic codswallop dreamt up by some trainee-to-be with more chutzpah than sense, and instead seek to persuade us that the original poster is raising a fair point.

Well, he or she is not. It's a nonsense of a question. I don't think this person would last two days in any decent department of any MC firm, because this person is in fairyland. And most MC firms do not operate in fairyland.

In fact, I half-suspect that Legalweek is short of decent Career Clinic questions and has thrown this and the two limp 'Anonymous' comments into the mix as a self-trolling attempt and as a sort of hopeful way of rousing a debate about something (anything) other than redundancies.

The recession has hit many of us very, very hard indeed...

Magic Circle Escapee -24 Aug 2009 | 16:17

Under the present economic conditions there is no way a US law firm would be able to justify employing a overseas NY Bar candidate over a similarly qualified US candidate. However, as a dual-qualified lawyer you stand a better chance. Take the TC and try to get a six-month secondment in the MC firm's US offices (if they have one) and then decide whether the NY Bar is worth the effort.

Anonymous -24 Aug 2009 | 16:35

Magic Circle Escapee - I can assure you that all questions and comments are 100% genuine.

Legal Week -24 Aug 2009 | 16:47

Headhunter

This is just ridiculous. I'm genuinely amazed. The fact that you're considering ditching your training contract at one of the world's finest firms to go and be a lawyer in New York is just incredible. This is the most hair-brained idea I've heard in a long time. It's stunning. Good luck. Not.

Wynder K -24 Aug 2009 | 17:05

First, it's an odd question since it's hypothetical: you have a MC TC and you haven't done the NY Bar so this is really an enquiry as to whether you should regret the route you have taken as it's a little late to change course.

Second, as to the question itself - not really. The NY Bar would in no way put you on a level footing with a JD hire so you would struggle to get a job in any market before even tackling the issue of getting a US work visa, which is incredibly difficult. The more common route would be to do an LLM at a top 5 school (outside of that, it's probably not worth the money). Assuming a solid economy, you should then be on a fairly level footing with most JD hires at firms in the top 20 but outside the top 5. Plus, you get a short-term work visa (Optional Practical Training) on the back of the degree and then have scope to apply for a longer term visa (H1-B) during that first year of work (with a preferred allocation owing to being a graduate of a US university).

Third, the BA, LLM route is not well publicised in the UK but it actually quite well accepted in the US (when I completed an LLM at a top 5 school the number of UK nationals was second only to Chinese nationals). Everyone knows that you know nothing as a first seat trainee/new JD hire, so as long as you get very good grades to demonstrate work ethic and intelligence, it can work out fine - you may be a little behind the curve for the first couple of months but should be able to quickly make up the ground in most transactional areas at least where the subject matter is beyond the scope of almost any law degree and certainly beyond the NY Bar.

Clearly, doing the same quality of work for 3x the money is the smart move and the higher salary makes it easy to pay off any loan taken for the LLM while a route back to the UK in the future would not be implausible, assuming you could get a place with one of the more international US firms and made a good impression while there.

But, this is all academic - you've missed the boat for LLM applications and the state of the economy is a complete game-changer and will remain so for a couple of years. If you were in the second summer of your law degree then applying for an LLM in the fall would certainly be the way to go but as it stands, do your MC TC and suck up the regret that you chose the wrong path. Looking ahead, you might want to consider lining up an LLM upon qualification as a route into the NY market, althuogh you would still then start as a JD hire in 4 years time.

NY Associate -24 Aug 2009 | 17:16

To quote an old Greek proverb "A bird in the hand is worth two in a bush". There's a lot of folks who would give their eye teeth to be in your enviable position. I may have read a bit too much into your post but you don't strike me as brimming with enthusiasm at having secured a TC with a MC. If your heart's not really in it, then do the decent thing - withdraw and give someone else a chance. If I'm wrong then apologies!

Locum Solicitor, Herts -24 Aug 2009 | 22:55

I originally wrote this post and it seems it has been completely misconstrued, mainly as a result of the title which was not my own choosing... I have no intention of "ditching" my training contract and am content to have the job I have been offered, especially in the current climate. This much is surely obvious...

All I wanted to point out was that there seems to be a major difference in the amount of time it takes to become an associate in New York as compared to London, and whether future graduates might want to consider the different routes available. I was first told of this idea by an associate of a US firm itself!

Frankly, I am a bit taken aback by how rude some of the responses have been but that is your prerogative I guess.

I don't think its a stupid question and thank you to all those who pointed out the practical difficulties of taking the New York route, of which I was not aware. This information was precisely what I was looking for.

Original Poster -25 Aug 2009 | 07:33

A career in law is a marathon - not a sprint. Shortcuts rarely work. In particular, there's a risk that neither the London nor the NY legal market will take you seriously. I also don't understand the suggestion above that English-qualified lawyers who have the NY Bar can command a higher salary. Is there any evidence to support this? Taking the NY Bar only makes sense if you are an English-qualified lawyer who wishes to move to the US - whether for professional or personal reasons - for the medium or long term.

Tax Associate -25 Aug 2009 | 10:32

"All I wanted to point out was that there seems to be a major difference in the amount of time it takes to become an associate in New York as compared to London" - But it doesn't. US applicants undertake a three-year law degree as a postgraduate. It therefore rarely takes less than 7 years of education before candidates take the bar exam. And anyway, the bar exam is simply something that every lawyer in the US is expected to pass, it is not a right of passage. Law firms look at your academic credentials, not your MPRE score - you will struggle without a JD.

US Lawyer -25 Aug 2009 | 11:41

Fair point, it does take 7 years for a US lawyer to become qualified. But I am not talking about US lawyers. I am looking from the perspective of a UK law graduate, for whom it is theoretically quicker to become a US associate than a UK associate:

3 years English law school + 1 year US LLM + 3 months New York Bar = US associate.

3 years English law school + 1 year LPC + 2 years training contract = UK associate.

So it is theoretically 2 years quicker to become a US associate than a UK associate, for a UK law graduate.

However, as has been pointed out, there are:
(a) Practical difficulties e.g. visa issues; and
(b) Recruitment difficulties e.g. US firms demanding a JD and not wanting UK law school grads, although maybe one option would be to apply to the London office...

I wasn't aware of the above difficulties until this debate. I just thought it is weird and (therefore worthy of a debate) that it is theoretically quicker for a UK law graduate to become a US associate than a UK associate...

Original Poster -25 Aug 2009 | 12:23

Associate

Wynder K - This is slightly off-topic, but I always thought it was "hare-brained", rather than "hair-brained". i.e. a brain like a hare.

Either way, I would agree. A very hare/hair brained scheme. My knowledge of the US bar exam comes mostly from John Grisham. Didn't Tom Cruise already have his job before he took the bar?

Hair or Hare? -25 Aug 2009 | 12:40

The current status of hairbrained is disputed: some style guides say that it should not be used, as does the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary: “While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained which has been established as the correct spelling”. The Third Edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage describes it as an erroneous form “which is still occasionally found”. Other guides disagree, a case in point being Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage which says, “Our opinion based on the evidence is that it is established”.

Spelling Enthusiast -25 Aug 2009 | 13:13

I have recently sat the New York Bar myself and await my results. I have the intention of moving to the States but am working in a law firm as a case worker. I contacted the Law Society in England and Wales who informed me I would be able to convert once if I remained working in a solicitor's firm for 2 years. So to me, I do not see any disadvantage with doing the New York Bar. Getting a training contract is the problem at the moment...

Moira -25 Aug 2009 | 13:50

Fair point. Apologies.

Wynder K -25 Aug 2009 | 13:55

"3 years English law school + 1 year LPC + 2 years training contract = UK associate" - don`t you mean "UK assistant" rather than associate? You can add a few more years otherwise - three in my case.

Regional lawyer -25 Aug 2009 | 13:58

Headhunter

Incidentally, this really is the best blog I've read in months!

Wynder K -25 Aug 2009 | 14:46

Odd

First, off topic - Regional Lawyer, no, he doesn't. He means "associate"; if there is a difference between "associate" and "assistant" in your firm, it is not universal.

Secondly - and more importantly - I am not convinced of the equation of "UK Associate" and "US Associate" that is implied. Everyone knows how long it takes to become one and how long it takes to become the other; no one (seriously) thinks that an NQ (having done two years' training contract) knows as much about the workings of a law firm as a new "associate" in the US and no-one seriously thinks that an NQ is as clueless as a first-day US associate (JD or no JD). The training at MC firms is also generally better than the "left to fend for oneself" stuff that most US firms seem to give their new associates.
So if you're after the money, you're right - but am not sure it's as much of a secret as you make out ("American firms pay better, especially in America"); if you have other considerations, I'd still go for an MC training contract (and switch later, if so minded) every time.

SicTransitGloriaLegis -25 Aug 2009 | 16:35

Visa issues

Unless you are already a US citizen, are married to a US citizen or have $1m+ in assets, you won't be getting a visa.

RSB -26 Aug 2009 | 00:47

VISA

I attend a number of American Bar Association conferences and have made a lot of friends with lawyers from all over the USA. I thought about going down this route but having spoken to a US immigration lawyer it would be impossible to get a visa unless you fit any of the criteria of the above post. I suggest that if you have £3,000 to spare that you spend it on doing volunteer work or doing a masters but I would not waste it on doing the NY bar exam.

Annalisa -26 Aug 2009 | 11:04

Give the guy a break - he asked a fair question that's been misinterpreted. Result = more tedious legal hair-splitting that misses the original point by the OP. C'mon people- there is no need to be rude.

Good hair & brain -26 Aug 2009 | 13:48

In response to SicTransitGloriaLegis re: the difference between "associate" and "assistant" - well, it must be my firm and every other firm I know outside of a US international then, as generally it goes Assistant, Associate, Partner (Salaried), Partner (equity) to finally that pinnacle of posts, Chairman of the Golf Club!!

Regional Lawyer -26 Aug 2009 | 13:54

Attorney at Law

I think the question posed here is a good one and I am glad someone in the UK has finally brought up the subject for discussion since I see a lot more British candidates taking the New York Bar without a clue of what actually goes on in the US. I moved to the US for family reasons after some years at the English Bar. I now practise in a small law firm in Texas (choice was mine) where I deal with mainly immigration, bankruptcies and federal crimes after my admission to the New York Bar. A visa is a must and there is no guarantee that you will 'breeze' into the New York Bar and 'breeze' into any law firm over here because you are English-trained and New York Barred. Truth is New York is highly competitive for lawyers wherever you were trained and it is right that most US firms are not looking for foreign-trained lawyers since there is a big pool of US associates without jobs to draw from from. To keep this short, my advice would be to finish your contract in England. You may need that as backup down the line should you decide that New York is not the 'Mecca' of law practice. I actually know of someone who abandoned their contract in England six months into their training to come over to the US. Suffice to say that after four years, they are yet to pass the NY Bar. A point to note is that generally, the pass rate is between 60 and 70 percent for first-time Bar exam takers who have JDs from ABA-approved universities in the US. There is no guarantee that you will pass first time easy as someone had suggested the exams were. My training at the Bar and practice background in England have been useful as I am better equipped to deal with clients on my own. I also have the leverage of returning to the Bar in England at any time. I have always preferred to be self-employed and chose some association with a law firm doing international work from the beginning. That gave me a chance to do what I call my American training and to decide which areas of the law best suit me. Private practice is an alternative but you need patience, some resources of your own to include confidence. It is hard and less rewarding at first but it gets better. Remember you were not trained in the US, are unfamiliar with court processes and proceedings and have no clue on the expectations of the clients you will be dealing with. Whatever you do, finish that training contract!

Akusu-Ossai -26 Aug 2009 | 18:22

Er, Regional Lawyer, there are dozens and dozens of major UK firms (including the vast majority of City firms) that do not differentiate between "associate" and "assistant". It's certainly not just the US firms. I take it from your peculiar reference to golf that you are in a high street firm.

To OP - take no notice of all the criticism posted above. Your question was a fair one.

Miso Soup -27 Aug 2009 | 12:00

Regional lawyer - I've worked at several UK firms in the City and have friends at many more. The distinction you suggest between 'assistant' and 'associate' simply doesn't exist. Some firms use them as titles to indicate seniority, whereas some simply refer to their qualified lawyers as a 'solicitors'. Personally, my experience is that most large firms in the City use 'associate' and that 'assistant' is a little outdated and, dare I say it, parochial....

Herman -27 Aug 2009 | 12:09

Er, Miso Soup, I believe Regional Lawyer's "peculiar reference to golf" was what is known in common parlance as a 'joke'.

Innocent Bystander -27 Aug 2009 | 12:38

What you really need to do....

I considered and lived through this question 20 years ago, so approach my comments with some real live experience. I sat for my NY Bar exams while doing my TC (or articles as they were then known) by studying at night (used to watch the videos 3 nights a week with half a dozen other people - after work - this was the first year the course had been run over here). The course was painful and by all accounts, not much has changed. It is right to point out that many many Brits fail on their first attempt, particularly when they take the course without having any US school experience (be it an LLM or otherwise). For one, half the exam is multiple choice where you are asked to pick the "best" (not necessarily right) answer from four choices. Getting the knack on that after just 3 months of evening study ain't easy.
You really need to apply yourself and focus to pass the exam. Having done so, I managed to get myself seconded by my (then) top 10 UK firm (not MC) to a top 10 US firm (then and now) with whom my UK firm had a strong relationship. The US firm had to apply for a visa for me, but (I acknowledge the rules may have changed) it wasn't a big deal as short term (say up to 2/3 year) work permits are not a major issue/not akin to going for citizenship. So don't be put off by that - it presents a small hassle for the US firm but one they routinely deal with for hires from South America/Canada/Asia and Europe by transferees from their lawyers in their existing offices.
I planned to stay in the US for a year but ended up staying 3. More than doubled my UK salary (was paid as a US associate) and had my accomodation and moving costs covered too.
I learned a tremendous amount while there and very much made myself more marketable as a dual qualified lawyer at a time when the major US firms were starting to bulk up or open their London offices.
I could have stayed at the US firm longer but decided to return to my UK firm where I eventually made partner (having become the firm's go to assistant on any deal with a US angle and building a niche in representing US clients looking at UK deals).
Within 12 months, I found myself being courted by a number of US firms to join their London office as a (or the) founding UK qualified partner. I took the challenge at a white shoe US firm (where I have now been for over 10 years).
Life is good, my earnings exceed top of lockstep partners at MC firms and I look back at my NY Bar exams thinking that was a smart move.
My advice is:
1. Stay with the MC training contract - MC is highly respected by all top US firms and, given you're motivated by money, will stand you in good stead over the long term.
2. Take the bar exam (on your own steam if the MC firm won't support) but work hard if you want to avoid the indignity and disappointment of failure.
3. While at MC firm, try to get as much exposure to partners with US client as possible. Even without a JD or LLM from a top 5 US law school, the combination of MC firm training, NY bar plus US deal/client experience will get you in to the top US firms in NY.
4. Safely ignore many of the comments above (by othe posters) who have little experience of US firm hiring criteria.
5. Play the long game - and (if money remains important to you) don't ever leave the MC/white shoe NY firm enclave.
Good luck.

NY/UK qualified lawyer -29 Aug 2009 | 08:32

Amused

Frankly nothing is impossible with hard work and a little bit of luck. Back in the distant days of the early nineties I had a training contract with a Magic Circle firm, ditched it, took the NY Bar exam, passed with flying colours and charmed my way into a Wall Street law firm (albeit spending six months in the postroom before getting my big break). I am now a partner in the same firm and wouldn't swap NY for London for all the tea in china my son. Nothing is impossible and I have had one hell of a ride. I say go for it and take the risk - you never know what may come of it; you'll certainly have a more interesting time than spending two years playing gimp in an MC firm, unless of course that sort of thing turns you on.

Partner, US firm -01 Sep 2009 | 12:34

California bar exam

How does the Cali bar fit in to all of this? I'm 5 years PQE and have had a good mix of finance (although not MC) experience in the City (both private practice and in-house) and am thinking of sitting the Cali bar exam in the hope of moving to California and practising there.

Any views? Am I crazy?

Uncertain -01 Sep 2009 | 16:23

well it depends

If you want to be a company man on a minimal salary like my fellow posters do a TC and then enjoy spell checking at a MC firm for the next 5 years. If you want to make money do the American Bar and then enjoy spell checking for the next 5 years on more money.

Either way, a loser is a loser

Company man -10 Sep 2009 | 14:52

UK barrister to NY?

I was just wondering, what are the options if you are planning on becoming a barrister with a pupillage at a top UK law chambers wishing to move to practise in New York as in America there is perhaps a lesser distinction between solicitors and barristers?

SQ -10 Jul 2010 | 20:52