Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.