‘I’ve got solicitor apprenticeship offers from two Magic Circle firms and a top US firm – how do I choose?’

For training contracts I’d say coin-toss between MC and US but for something as long and as training-based as an apprenticeship I would opt for MC: bigger headcount in London means more opportunities to try different work. Unless you have a super-specific idea of what you want to do (which I advise against when aged 18!) I would go MC, and ideally choose the MC that has the better rep for either transactional/disputes depending on what you think you might prefer. No biggie then if you change your mind on interests.

MC firm: High client service standards, attentive and extremely thorough training, extensive (sometimes brutal) feedback. More predictable hours, but more hierarchal and a more formal, structured approach to training.

US firm: Still high client service standards and great training, but to a lesser degree. More demanding in terms of hours and expectations to just “get things done”. Less predictable hours, still hierarchal but to a lesser extent, slightly less formal and more “entrepreneurial”. Generally less secondment opportunities but some people do not care about that.

I have worked at both.

I would 100% do a SA at a Magic Circle firm, the headcount and breadth of work will be bigger and the training and support is heavily invested in – plus they have very large trainee cohorts so lawyers are just used to having lots of juniors involved on deals that they have to teach, every department will have multiple trainees that you can learn alongside and get support from etc.

Definitely MC. Appreciate this question is targeted at solicitor apprenticeships, but the same advice applies to training contracts too.

The post tax pay difference between MC firms and US firms at the trainee – 2PQE level is pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things, especially when performance based bonuses at MC firms are taken into account.

If you decide a few years down the line that you want to make the switch (as an increasing number of people do, particularly in the MC > US direction), it’s much easier to move from a MC to a US firm at the junior/mid level, than it is the other way round. MC firms take on an army of trainees every year and have pretty high retention rates, so there is much less demand for lateral hires at the junior/mid level as compared to US firms.

My personal view is:
– MC firms have, generally speaking, being running training contract (and perhaps solicitor apprenticeship ?) programmes longer than US firms, and so the their training is more structured as opposed to the more ad hoc “learn on the job” US style;

– MC firms typically have larger trainee intakes and so there is a higher likelihood that trainees’ holidays will be respected as compared to the smaller US outfits;

– whether rightly or wrongly, the magic circle “brand” carries a historical weight even outside of the legal industry, which arguably makes moving in-house easier at the junior level if that’s what you decide to do. Though TBC how long that continues to be true, considering the rising dominance of US firms in the London market; and

– if you are hoping to do a secondment, your chances of going on a secondment are generally higher at a MC firm than at a US firm.

All of those points are of course huge generalisations, and there are nuances depending on which specific firms you have offers from and what practice area you end up qualify into etc. I would just say that your quality of life at a MC firm as a junior is likely going to be better than your counterparts at US firms and so, in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, I’d go with MC.