Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
Hi all,
I've been following this thread for a while and have observed quite a lot of good information here, though there is the occasional divergence from the topic. I'm looking for some advice and perspectives from seniors/lawyers who've been or in or have friends in similar situations.
If you had a choice to do a TC at an international firm in singapore (think a&o/cc/bakers) or at a US firm(s) in London (with no/limited presence in singapore but not necessarily hk/asia- think kirkland/debevoise/skadden), where would you prefer to do your TC at and why?
I'm especially interested to know:
- what advantages I would gain from starting at CC singapore (that would make up for the opportunity cost of working in london/a US firm) = I'm aware that CC and A&O sends their trainees for 6-month secondments to London and there is the prospect of dual-qualification
- how the private equity market is like in singapore? if anyone can expand on whether PE experience in a firm in london would be valued in singapore, this would be helpful! (interested in this especially because i heard that the PE market in singapore is quite dry?)
thanks for your help guys! any insight would really be appreciated  |
First off I think US firms don't give out
TCs in Singapore because there's no training requirement for US jurisdictions, e.g. you just sit for the NY bar exams. You get hired straight as an associate out of law school.
The question then is why would they hire an LLB grad when the min requirement for most of their people is a JD?
Most people who are Commonwealth qualified lawyers have at least 4 + years of experience at Big 4 or MC before they lateral to US firms.
This may be different in London where they do have qualifying training programmes? Correct me if I'm unaware.
As regards prestige, think of MC firms as Officer Cadet School (OCS), Big 4 firms as Specialist Cadet School (SCS) and US firms as commissioned officers
LTA and above.
MC firms are known as good training grounds, good culture generally and solid prestige / repudiation. I believe that is also the reputation they have in their homebase London.
OTOH, US firms are known for long hours but good pay and prestige beats MC hands own, even in London. Salaries approach investment banking levels. You basically get "beasted" and its sink or swim but your exit options are excellent.
If you can secure a training programme for a US firm in the City I would think the answer is a no brainer. There are already 2 advantages: (1) London > Singapore, (2) US firm (generally) > MC firm...Unless you're homesick.
If you can get qualified in UK, there's no problem coming in as a foreign practitioner in Singapore.