For many Australian lawyers, New York represents one of the most exciting international career moves available. It offers exposure to some of the world's most sophisticated legal work, market-leading clients and the opportunity to build a career at the heart of global finance.
Although, moving from Australia to New York involves far more than relocating. The scale of the market, the structure of law firms, hiring expectations and the day-to-day experience of practising law can be very different.
In this Q&A, Senior Legal Recruitment Consultant Misha Mckenzie shares her perspective from working closely with both the Australian and New York legal markets. From the practice areas currently driving demand to what makes Australian lawyers attractive to US firms, she discusses what lawyers should know before making the move and how they can position themselves for success.
Q: You’re normally based in our Sydney office but you’re currently spending time in New York. What has stood out to you about the New York legal market compared with Australia?
Misha: The first thing that stands out is the sheer scale of the market. New York has a large concentration of major US firms, international firms, financial institutions, private equity clients and multinational businesses that is difficult for any other legal market to replicate.
The work also feels incredibly specialised. In Australia, lawyers often gain quite broad exposure across a practice area. In New York, lawyers may build an extremely deep specialism within one particular product, sector or type of transaction.
There is also a greater sense of intensity. The expectations are high and firms are competing for both premium work and the strongest legal talent.
Q: What would you say are the biggest differences between working in Australia and working in New York as a lawyer?
Misha: The scale, pace and structure of the teams are probably the biggest differences. Australian teams are smaller in comparison, which can mean lawyers receive meaningful responsibility relatively early. They are often working closely with partners, managing clients and taking ownership of significant parts of a matter.
New York firms generally operate on a much larger scale. Matters can involve bigger teams and greater transaction values. That creates exceptional training and exposure, but the environment can also be more hierarchical and the expectations around responsiveness, availability and attention to detail are extremely high.
The hours are undoubtedly demanding in New York, although Australian lawyers coming from busy top-tier teams are often better prepared for that environment than they realise.
Q: New York is one of the world’s leading legal markets. What areas of law are currently driving demand there, and how does that compare with Australia?
Misha: New York is especially driven by private capital and financial markets. There is a huge ecosystem of investment banks, private equity sponsors, credit funds and global corporates, so lawyers can become highly specialised in areas such as leveraged finance, fund finance, capital markets or sponsor-side M&A.
We continue to see strong demand across transactional practice areas: banking & finance, private equity, funds, restructuring, and M&A.
There is some overlap with Australia; corporate, finance, and restructuring have all remained active areas of demand in the market. Equally, however, energy, infrastructure, and competition have also been at the forefront of hiring. Australia’s strength in major projects, energy transition and infrastructure is particularly distinctive.
Q: What makes Australian lawyers attractive to New York firms? Are there particular skills or experiences that stand out?
Misha: Australian lawyers are generally very well trained, commercially minded and accustomed to working in lean teams. Because teams in Australia are often smaller, lawyers can develop strong drafting, transaction-management, and client-facing experience earlier than they might in a larger market.
They also tend to be adaptable. Australian lawyers regularly work across complex matters involving international clients, multiple jurisdictions and different legal systems, so the transition into a US firm can be quite natural.
The candidates who attract the most interest usually have distinction academics, excellent training, and experience from a highly regarded firm. Transactional lawyers working in M&A, private equity, finance, restructuring, funds or projects are often particularly transferable, although opportunities will always depend on market conditions. It’s worthwhile flagging that level is also a major factor in the hiring of Australian candidates. Ideally, the market favours those coming across with approx. 3PQE to 6PQE. Exceptions will be made for finance lawyers where some teams will look at profiles of very junior practitioners.
Q: For Australian lawyers considering a move to New York, when is the right stage in their career to make that transition?
Misha: There is no perfect point, but the strongest window is often once a lawyer has developed a solid technical foundation and can demonstrate meaningful responsibility on high-quality matters. Generally, that tends to be around the three-to-six-year level. At that stage, lawyers are experienced enough to add value but still junior enough to adapt to a new market, team structure, and way of working.
Moving too early can be difficult because the lawyer may not yet have developed a compelling amount of experience. Leaving it significantly later can also reduce the number of opportunities, because firms become more focused on local market knowledge, portable client relationships, and an established business case.
That said, it depends heavily on the practice area and the individual’s experience.
Q: What are the biggest misconceptions Australian lawyers have about moving to New York?
Misha: One misconception is that firms are simply looking for any Australian lawyer from a recognised firm. New York is an extremely competitive market, and candidates still need a clear reason why their particular experience is relevant.
Another is that the move is purely about earning a higher salary. Compensation is obviously attractive, but candidates also need to think carefully about working hours, cost of living, team culture, progression, bar admission and what they want from the experience.
Q: From your perspective as a recruiter, what separates the Australian candidates who successfully make the move from those who struggle?
Misha: The strongest candidates are targeted. They understand what is genuinely transferable about their experience, they can explain why they want New York specifically, and they have researched the firms and teams they are speaking with. They do not rely solely on the name of their current firm to get them there.
They are also able to communicate the substance of their experience clearly. Rather than simply listing matters, they explain what they personally drafted, managed, negotiated, or advised on.
Candidates tend to struggle when they approach the market too broadly, have unrealistic expectations around seniority or compensation, or cannot articulate why a New York firm should hire them over a strong local candidate.
Q: What practical steps should lawyers take before exploring opportunities in New York?
Misha: The first step is to assess whether their practice area and level are currently transferable. The New York lateral market can change quickly, so getting an honest view of demand before beginning a process is important.
They should also update their CV so that it clearly explains their personal role on each matter, rather than simply describing the transaction or dispute.
Bar eligibility should be investigated early. Foreign-trained candidates must have their legal education assessed by the New York State Board of Law Examiners, and eligibility depends on the nature and duration of their legal education. Some candidates qualify to sit the Bar based on their existing degree, while others may need to undertake additional study before doing so.
Lawyers should also think about references, timing, visa arrangements and whether they are genuinely prepared for the practical and financial realities of relocating.
Q: Having worked closely with both markets, what do you think Australian lawyers underestimate about the opportunities available overseas?
Misha: Interestingly, I think it's often the opposite. Australian lawyers are incredibly well trained, but many assume that because they're coming from a top-tier Australian firm, moving to New York will be relatively straightforward. The reality is that New York is one of the most competitive legal markets in the world, and firms can be highly selective.
Candidates need more than a strong firm name on their CV. They need excellent academics, high-quality transactional or disputes experience, a practice area that is in demand, and, importantly, a genuine reason for wanting to build a career in New York.
Where I do think Australian lawyers underestimate the opportunity is in the long-term value of international experience. For those who secure the move, the exposure to global clients, sophisticated cross-border matters and one of the world's most competitive legal markets can be hugely valuable. Whether they stay overseas or eventually return to Australia, that experience can significantly broaden both their technical capability and their career opportunities.
Q: What is your biggest piece of advice for an Australian lawyer who is considering making the move to New York?
Misha: Be clear about why you are making the move and do not pursue New York purely because it feels like the obvious next step. It is an incredible market, but it is also demanding. The lawyers who get the most out of it tend to have a clear idea of what they can bring to the table, the experience they want to gain, the type of team they want to join and how the move fits into their longer-term career goals.
I would also encourage lawyers to speak with someone who understands both markets, get an honest assessment of your experience and then approach the process strategically.
%20(1).png)
.png)