Nearly twice as many men as women join US firms to improve their chances of making partner, a survey by The Lawyer reveals today.
The survey, which was sent to thousands of UK associates at US firms between 15 and 29 March this year, asked respondents what their main motivators were for joining a US firm.
While 23 per cent of the total respondents said that they made the move for money, six per cent of male respondents said they joined a US firm as they believed it would improve their partnership chances. In contrast, just three per cent of female associates said making partner was their prime motivator.
For the female respondents increased access to clients and more responsibility ranked far more highly. A total of 13 per cent of women said that was why they made the move while for men the proportion was six per cent.
In a separate but related survey, which was sent to associates at UK firms, more respondents would consider working at embattled New York firm Dewey & LeBoeuf than Wall Street titan Skadden.
The aim of the survey was to find the answer to a simple question: which US law firm would you join if you were considering moving?
Nearly 20 per cent of respondents said Baker & McKenzie, putting the firm in the number one slot. Hogan Lovells, DLA Piper and Latham & Watkins were second, third and fourth most popular respectively.
Bakers HR director Martin Blackburn said a likely reason for his firm ranking so highly is the firm’s inclusive and cohesive culture.
“Our culture recognises not only the importance of having a diverse group of people in our business, but also the commercial need to ensure an environment where our people feel able to thrive,” he said.
For more, see feature.
Readers' comments (19)
Anonymous | 10-Apr-2012 11:13 pm
The survey should also have dug into the seniority of those who move. I doubt any NQ or junior associate these days seriously considers partnership prospects when they apply somewhere. They would also sound ridiculous if they bring that up in an interview at a MC or top US firm.
Also, agree with the above post that the quality of deals at US firms is nothing compared to MC. Up to you whether it's worth the money or not. Sorry, I mean partnership prospects...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Apr-2012 9:18 am
I work at an international office of a 'real' US firm. I've asked a few of the English associates why they chose a US firm over a magic circle. Their responses typically included statements like "I don't have the right background to succeed at a magic circle", or "I'm not posh enough to work at the magic circle" or "They wouldn't consider someone like me".
How depressing. Why would any top grad, even a painfully posh one, want to join a crowd like the magic circle? The MC sound pre-modern compared to their US peer firms - more antiquated institutions than leading-edge businesses.
What's so great about the US firms? Sure you get smashed about, but generally the structure and relations between people is flat, open and casual. The money is a great motivator too, specially given the short shelf life of most associates big law careers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Me | 11-Apr-2012 9:57 am
@ 5:25pm Nonsense. It is all about money. Any one of those factors that you list (recognition etc) can be relegated/removed and compensated for with more money. However, remove salary and how many out there would do the job full-time pro-bono because they received recognition or because the firms values were aligned with their own?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bob diamond | 11-Apr-2012 11:23 am
I once read an interview with a partner at a top US firm who had moved from a MC firm who said that the biggest difference between the MC and a US firm is that lawyers in US firms say " f**k " and no-one bats an eyelid.............oh and the mullah
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fund GC | 11-Apr-2012 11:43 am
In my experience, over the last 20 years, there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of MC associates and an increase in the quality of US firm associates. I think that this is because the US firms have been acquiring the knowledge management expertise of the more established UK firms, and also hiring excellent partners (especially in the funds space). We use (and, indeed, prefer) certain US firms to certain MC firms because their associates are better. I have found it interesting that some commentators think that the work that my firm does is "not of a high enough quality" - that is not what the MC tell us in pitches.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ben | 15-Apr-2012 10:24 am
"Accordingly US law firms are probably offering more than just better salaries"
Yep. More appreciation, more bluntness, less contempt, less emphasis on social background...
Simply put, people prefer working at US firms for the same reason they prefer working with Americans than with Brits!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ben | 15-Apr-2012 12:54 pm
To me US firm associates are, in fact, better trained. More responsibility, more hands-on work, less 'departmentalization', in short they are generally more flexible, well-rounded lawyers.
The big difference is the lesser degree of leverage in US firms in terms of staffing and what this produces in the long run. MC firms have a 'Mexican army' approach to staffing which is really not ideal in terms of growing as a lawyer.
So while MC associates do, of course, provide high-quality work, they are generally less commercial and self-reliant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Apr-2012 1:04 pm
@ Me | 11-Apr-2012 9:57 am
No, really. The point wasn't that salary doesn't count. The point was that salary is only part of it. To put it another way, take away everything and leave just salary and you won't be a happy legal bunny for long. Trust me. I'm sure people are solely motivated by money but take away quality of work; clients; personal development; management prospects; family life; health and salary becomes less important. Therefore, I suspect that the US firms are offering more than just a great salary. Otherwise those revolving doors would be doubling as the next alternative to wind farms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Apr-2012 1:24 pm
"The reason I joined was just short of 100k a year for a NQ"...."Perhaps the most interesting anecdotal evidence that I have is that i'm probably working less hours than I would be at a MC firm."
What a shame that you lawyers are allowed to earn 100k without knowing the difference between "less" and "fewer"...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment