A New York finance associate once asked me what it would take to make the same move to London. He assumed it was mostly a matter of finding the right firm and negotiating the offer. The harder parts turned out to be qualification, market-specific deal structures, and a compensation system that didn't translate the way he expected — none of which showed up until well into the process.
Cross-border lateral moves get pitched, understandably, as a bigger version of a domestic one. They're not. The mechanics of qualification, client transferability, and compensation change meaningfully when the move crosses a border — and most of that only becomes visible once you're deep into a specific process.
Qualification Isn't Always Portable
A US qualification doesn't automatically translate into full standing in London, Hong Kong, or Sydney, and the requirements differ by jurisdiction and by firm. Some firms will hire US-qualified lawyers into US law practices based in another city with minimal friction. Others require local requalification, additional exams, or a defined period working under supervision before full standing. This is worth understanding precisely and early — not assumed — since it directly affects both timeline and the kind of work available in the interim.
The Deal Itself May Not Look the Same
Practice areas that appear identical on a resume can function differently market to market. Fund structures common in the US market may be less prevalent in Asia-Pacific; deal timelines, documentation norms, and regulatory touchpoints in London differ from New York even within the same nominal practice area. A strong US finance associate moving into a London-based fund finance role isn't just relocating — they're often learning a meaningfully different version of the practice, and firms vary widely in how much ramp-up support they build in for that.
Compensation Structures Diverge by Market
US-style origination-heavy compensation models are not universal. Markets like the UK, Hong Kong, and Australia often run different base structures, bonus mechanics, and partnership economics — and currency, tax treatment, and cost of living all affect what a headline number actually means in take-home terms. A number that looks like a step up in absolute terms can be a step back once those factors are accounted for.
What to Ask Before Treating a Cross-Border Offer Like a Domestic One
● What's the exact qualification pathway required, and what's the realistic timeline for full standing in the new jurisdiction?
● How does the firm's local practice in this area actually differ from the US version — deal types, client base, regulatory environment?
● How is compensation structured locally, and how does it compare in real terms once tax, currency, and cost of living are factored in?
● Does the firm have a track record of successfully relocating lawyers into this specific office and practice combination, or would this be a first?
Canadian and Australian Partners Are Thriving in the US Market
One pattern worth naming directly: Canadian and Australian-qualified partners who move into elite US firms tend to perform exceptionally well once they land — building books, winning internal support, and often outpacing homegrown peers within a few years. Part of this is substantive — common law training, comparable deal exposure, and often prior work on cross-border matters that already touch the US market — but part of it is also about mindset going in.
These partners generally aren't treating the first US platform as a permanent landing spot. They tend to arrive already comfortable with the idea that a strong platform is earned, not assumed — which makes them more deliberate about testing whether a given firm's platform actually supports the practice they're building, rather than settling in on loyalty alone. That's often what makes a second, better-fitting US move a realistic option a few years in rather than a career risk. Firms that recruit Canadian and Australian partners well understand this and build the relationship accordingly, rather than assuming a commitment that hasn't been earned yet.
The Right Move, Evaluated the Wrong Way
International moves can be genuinely excellent career decisions — new markets, broader networks, different quality of practice. But they're a different kind of decision than a domestic lateral, with different variables to diligence, and treating them as functionally the same is where most of the friction in these moves originates.
This is the final piece in a four-part series on what lateral moves and partnership offers actually involve beyond the title and headline number. Sonder Consultants operates across New York, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, London, and Sydney, and regularly advises lawyers — including Canadian associates moving into elite US firms — on exactly these kinds of cross-market moves.
