The Asia Chronicles: Picking A Firm
In this fifth installment of the Asia Chronicles, we continue with our theme from last week. You've decided that you want to practice law in Asia... So now what?
Many people, including the Asia Corporate Lawyers, started law school thinking that they might someday like to work in Asia, but didn't understand how to achieve that goal or what kind of work such a career would really involve. As 1Ls, convinced that law practice was all about not confusing impleader and interpleader, we had vague ideas of becoming jet-setting international arbitrators or prosecutors for INTERPOL. As 2Ls, our job search was conducted in the same spirit of blissful ignorance, as we simply printed out the Vault prestige rankings and eliminated any firm that did not have an Asian office (allowing us the pleasure of summarily rejecting Wachtell), giving extra points to lower-ranked firms with strong international presence. We still shudder to think that one of our most coveted offers at the time was Coudert Brothers, as it had 28 offices worldwide (Hanoi, Jakarta and Almaty, oh my!).
Now, as sadder but wiser mid-level corporate associates, we hope to enlighten job-seeking law students or lateral attorneys with some hard-won advice when it comes to choosing a law firm with the goal of someday making it to Asia:
1. Number of international offices does not equal stronger international practice or more opportunities for American lawyers to work abroad. When selecting law firms that you want to interview with, don't just look at where they have offices; also look at who is working at those offices. Check the attorney roster on the website. Are the only U.S.-qualified lawyers in the firm partners, with most or all of the associates being foreign-qualified attorneys? Does it seem that most or all of the associates are native speakers of the local language? If you don't see many attorneys with backgrounds similar to yours, there's a good chance that the firm won't be able to use you in that office.
2. Is the firm a "franchise" firm, or one with a uniform and centralized structure? Firms vary in the way in which they manage their international offices. Certain firms, like the top New York firms, are fairly involved in the management of their overseas operations. Payroll and hiring in Asia at these firms all run through New York at some point. For other firms, the international offices act more like self-contained units.
Why does this matter? Little things like technology upgrades/solutions and expense reimbursements may take longer or be more frustrating to deal with at New York-centric firms. On the other hand, a less integrated firm may not offer its lawyers the opportunity to easily access the resources of the entire firm.
3. Should you work for a British firm? Many British law firms have historically been involved in the Asia market longer than their U.S. counterparts. This may mean that some British firms have a broader or more established practice in your area of interest. You should be aware, though, that there are distinct cultural differences between British and U.S. firms. For starters, U.S. lawyers working at British firms in Asia are usually compensated on a different (higher) payscale than their colleagues at the same firm, which can lead to some friction between the U.S. and non-U.S. lawyers. As a U.S. lawyer at a British firm, you may also be completely shut out from certain types of deals. For example, in the capital markets realm, U.S. lawyers for British firms work mostly on the limited Rule 144A/Regulation S aspects of securities offerings. British firms would almost never be hired to work on U.S. IPO mandates.
For some perspective on these points, as usual, we turned to Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting. According to Evan, "The U.S. prestige rankings of firms, although important for any lateral candidate to consider, do not necessarily carry over to Asia, as many variables are involved in whether a firm is well-positioned in a particular Asia region. Also, the length of time an office has been in place and the number of attorneys in an office can be misleading with regard to how established a U.S. firm is in an Asia market and its future potential there. Some other important factors to consider are a firm's expansion plans in the region, whether there is a senior partner in place who is well-connected in the country at issue, and the quality of support in the U.S. for primary practice areas."
Robert adds, "Keep in mind that most firms are structured such that if an associate is well-regarded and his or her practice group in the U.S. is busy, an internal move out to Asia is not likely to be supported by the partners immediately responsible for that associate, so a lateral move may be necessary anyway." Thus, according to Evan, "it may not be prudent for a law student to try to choose a U.S. office based in large part on a potential down-the-road internal move to Asia. Relevant training is more important."
Regarding the "British vs. American" debate, Evan points out that he knows U.S. groups within the British firms that are thriving, making their own hiring and partnership decisions, and a great choice for the right candidate. At the same time, he says, "there are a couple of the top U.K. firms whose first question to us is sometimes whether a candidate is expecting to get a U.S. salary and housing allowance. It's those firms where I think the cultural gulf is wider."
So how can you tell where you will find a fit? According to Robert, "It is often the case that looking at the website bios of attorneys at a firm can give you some notion of who might be willing to consider you. But we also have clients who are looking to add a different sort of lawyer to the mix of attorneys within their firm. These days we are seeing clients transfer attorneys from their U.S. offices because they are underutilized there. The attorneys that they transfer sometimes have completely different backgrounds from what might be considered ideal by the partners in the office they transfer to."
Next week we will discuss a question that confronts many law students and junior associates thinking of working in Asia. Is it better to go straight out of law school, or to get a few years of experience practicing in the U.S.?
You know where to find us: asiacorporatelawyers at gmail dot com.
*****************
Kinney Recruiting has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years.
[Disclosure: Kinney is the sponsor of this post.]
(31) Comments
Will this bullsh!t never stop?
Second to say - this is a great series and very informative, please don't stop it.
To all the complainers: each post helpfully comes with a big headline reading "The Asia Chronicles." If you don't like it, scroll past it.
I don't read every section of the newspaper. For example, I put the classifieds straight in the recycling bin.
It's that easy.
first to say WGWAG
As a US qualified securities lawyer who has been based abroad in the past, one statement in the above needs to be qualified. While it is true that British law firms don't often handle SEC registered IPOs by non-US companies, saying that they work "mostly on the limited Rule 144A/Regulation S aspects of securities offerings" is very misleading. When a US qualified team abroad is brought in to handle a securities offering, it is to handle the ENTIRE deal.
And these days much more often then not, big international securities deals are being done under Rule 144A and/or Regulation S and are not registered with the SEC. However, particularly for Rule 144A deals (which are often "IPOs" where shares are to be listed on non-US exchanges), the substance of the legal work (drafting disclosure, negotiating underwriting agreements etc.) is very comparable to the work done done by lawyers for SEC registered deals. The primary difference is that the SEC is not directly involved in reviewing the documentation.
Now, if you want to haggle with the SEC over disclosure points every day, don't go to a British Firm. But if your goal as a US qualified lawyer is simply to do interesting and high profile international securities deals, there is really no difference between the top tier NY firms with strong offices abroad and most of the Magic Circle.
Also note that within the British firms, it is generally far more acceptable for an associate to move around between multiple offices over the course of their career.
What kind of super-crappy recruiters don't even have a website - an email address of "asiacorporatelawyers at gmail dot com" does indicate (NOT) that these guys are placing tons of attorneys in Asian markets. L.A.M.E.
Is the enterprising Roger Lou behind this?
Why do these posts maintain the fiction that there are actual associates behind them? Real associates would presumably have more specific things to say than this generic tripe and might even discuss some real firms from time to time. I mean, how are we supposes to imagine this works? Since Jowers sponsors the post, does he pay them? Or they so eager to spout their "insider" knowledge that they are volunteering to help him advertise his agency?
This entire post is quite inscrutable.
Roger Lou!!!
As an amazingly important partner at a huge V5 firm who has done big things in Asia, I approve this post.
I think these posts are great, very helpful. Don't stop. The haters need to kiss off. If you don't like them, don't read them. They aren't brussel sprouts and ATL isn't your mother.
Is there a big demand for US IP lawyers in Asia?
10:54 - It will stop. The first line states "In this fifth installment of the Asia Chronicles." If the plan was to keep the column indefinitely it would not be an installment. Unfortunately the number of installments could be high relative to our tolerance for these disguised advertisements.
11.20, maybe you should try clicking on "Kinney Recruiting" for the link to their site.
These posts are god aweful and give almost no useful information. Time to can this piece.
I think these posts are VERY helpful. They are not more firm-specific because the anonymous attys that are helping can't give up the golden goose, and a recruitment agency is not going to rag on one of their clients publicly.
Moving across the world to pursue your career is a big deal. It's an agonizing decision. I've done it twice, and insights into the local firm culture, no matter how banal are helpful--more than you could glean from any firm's website, to be sure.
Good post. Very informative.
11:20 and other detractors, Robert Kinney here. If you want more information, you should follow the links to the Kinney Recruiting website and perhaps give a call to Evan Jowers or to me. The gmail address is the address of the writers of the post, who are in Hong Kong and (I think) Shanghai. There will be a great deal more information on our site very soon, but in any case there's always going to be a limit to what we can say about specific firms publicly. I'll bet you a $200 dinner that if you call us you will find that we (and in particular Evan) know more about what's going on in with firms in Asia than you are inclined to believe from our limited comments on these posts.
11:12, you make a great point. We don't write these posts (and normally only get a synopsis of the topic about 12 hours before it posts for our comments) but as a former securities lawyer who has worked on a few Rule 144A/Reg S offerings in the past, I noticed that this needed some clarification and as a reader I appreciate the input.
To Lat: you have whored yourself out to Kinney and Jowers. You are now in the ranks of those newspapers running sponsored pieces. All you need is a little "ADVERTISEMENT" tag above the article.
To Kinney and Jowers: I hope you get lots of placements through this series and make a dumptruck full of money. Kudos to you on this clever pseudo-journalism.
To anyone considering moving out to Asia who is a Gweilo: the time where white expats ran that part of the world has ended. You are getting to be very much unwelcome out there. Good luck being successful in Shanghai or Beijing if you can't speak business mandarin.
While I find the series to be informative and helpful--especially b/c I will be working in Asia after law school--it would be even more so if the posts were a little more detailed. This post for example could have benefited by naming names. For ex., which Asian offices of US firms are highly regarded, and which ones shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole? More inside information please!
And to those who continue to bash these posts: Seriously, can't you just skip past them?
6.42, Evan here. Please note that it is simply not possible for us to name names in such a manner in a public forum like this. If we did we could alienate our clients and all the major firms in Asia are clients. Robert or I would be happy to discuss the market in more detail with you over the phone or by email (evan@kinneyrecruiting.com). We are happy to give advice on the market, even if you don't use our services (we can't represent you until you have experience after law school anyways).
Ummm...I asked this once before in the previous comments, but let me ask again. Evan or the authors - what about non-top-tier grads? Can you talk about that? Just in a comment here would be great. Thanks.
where is roger lou ???
WITH RESPECT, Hong Kong, WITH RESPECT.
Wow, Jowers and Kinney be careful, this post was almost borderline helpful!
11:12 makes some good points, but I would disagree with the following: "if your goal as a US qualified lawyer is simply to do interesting and high profile international securities deals, there is really no difference between the top tier NY firms with strong offices abroad and most of the Magic Circle."
If you want to spend your entire career overseas, fine. If you want to go back to the U.S., it makes a big difference whether you begin your career at a top tier NY firm or a Magic Circle firm. Magic Circle firms (with the obvious exception of Slaughter and May) are delighted to take US laterals from top tier NY firms, but the reverse is mostly not the case.
4:45 - I wrote the original post at 11:12. And generally, your response is fair enough. I'd note however that top-tier NY firms don't often take laterals period, so typically US associates who spend a portion of their early careers abroad either come back to the NY office of the firm they are with or lateral to a "lesser" (and I mean that only in the most innocuous sense possible) firm back in the states.
Also, I'd note that at least three of the Magic Circle firms (CC, Linklaters, A&O) have pretty credible NY offices at this point, where by most reports associates are very happy about their quality of work, pay, and advancement opportunities. These firms aren't at the Latham/Cleary/S&C (to take a couple of examples of top-tier firms with strong international networks) level yet, but there's no shame in working for their offices in NY.
Anyway, my goal was simply to address questions regarding the quality of work done by US lawyers abroad in British firms vs. their counterparts in US firms, not to get into a debate about exit ops.
Can you broaden this discussion to jobs in Eastern Europe.
5-29-08@2:23pm: Did you happen to notice title of series? Or have you forgotten grade school subject called "geography"?
"top-tier NY firms don't often take laterals"?? Since when??
To Weds. 4:25 PM--
I know plenty of foreign devils (gweilo) working in Shanghai and Beijing, and doing just fine thank you very much. They feel very much welcome there, your personal dislike of caucasians notwithstanding. Your little racist rant, on the other hand, is less than welcome here, although I suspect that the real reason for your post is that you simply want to discourage people from moving out there because you fear competition.