The reason for this is twofold: 1) salary discrepancies between in-house and these firms, and 2) magic circle and US firms not being considered the best breeding ground for this type of work. For commercial contracts roles, it’s more unusual to see candidates move in-house from magic circle or top US firms. I mostly recruit across commerce and industry (tech, FMCG and sport to name a few) and therefore work on many more commercial contracts based in-house roles than my colleagues in Financial Services. It’s also a bi-product of Financial Services specialisms (banking, derivatives, leveraged finance, etc.) – this is often the big ticket work undertaken by magic circle and US firms for their top blue-chip and investment bank clients and therefore the candidates with the most relevant experience are believed to hail from those firms. Quite often, a request for ‘magic circle only’ will come from a hiring manager who also trained in a magic circle firm and consequently want a ‘like-for-like’ candidate and to guarantee that the same, high quality of training and development has been undertaken. This sentiment is fairly accurate for the Financial Services sector and many of the searches we are asked to undertake in Financial Services are steered toward candidates from magic circle/US firms. "To kick us off, I’d say there’s a general perception in the market that being trained and retained in a magic circle/US firm will make you more employable in-house. Does coming from a magic circle/US firm make a difference in getting a role in-house? Our in-house recruitment expert, Aleisha Murray, speaks with Knowse, a leading legal in-house network foundation, to discuss how a background in a magic circle/US firm can impact your move in-house
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |