Even if this issue is quite a classical one, I saw there isn't any thread specifically dedicated to it. So I hope it may be not useless or too boring!

I'm an italian student, and I'm going to complete within a few days my Law Master's degre (under the 3+2 system we have had for some years in Italy: now a new 5 year program has been established by the minister).

I received unconditional offers from Durham, Manchester, Queen mary, King's College, and I'm waiting for news from UCL (which is my first choice, before King's).

In fact, I have doubts on the fact itself of attending the LLm this september (International business).

The fact is that I do not have any specific work experience. Some people (for istance, italian lawyers) often advise not to do an LLm before having experienced some years working.

On another hand, I'm afraid that if I lose this chance, there couldn't be another possibility...once you begin working (as far as Italy is concerned), if your legal office doesn't substain such a decision, it may be hard to leave anything for a whole year.

Furthermore, at the moment I'm interested in academic aspects rather than professional ones.

- For a foreign student, is the complete absence of prior work experience a lack which doesn't allow you to "catch" all (or the most) an LLM can offer ?

- Would you regard an LLm in London also as a good choice in the perspective of future PHd in comparative and international business law (even in continental europe) ?

Thank you to anyone who would like to add his comments or experiences.

Dear Alex,
The issue you have raised is important and too infrequently discussed on this forum.

My overall view is that getting some experience and in fact being qualified before you take an LLM has significant advantages. First, in courses which have a substantial practical application for instance international banking, antitrust, shipping-the sort of courses we run at City and at places like UCL, practical experience really helps you to get underneath the subject quicker and understand what is really going on. Second, if you take an LLM and are qualified you can then take job opportunities arising from the LLM. For example, most of my LLM students this year who are qualified and have won internships with major international law firms can potentially be hired by those firms or look for jobs with other firms on the back of the internship. However, I have one student who won an internship but is not yet qualified-so frustratingly even if the firm the student is working for wanted to hire the student they could not do so-nor can that student use the internship as an immediate career launchpad.

So my overall view is that it is better to be qualified than not when taking a LLM.

However, clearly if you reckon you are not likely to have any other time to do the LLM than before you have specific work experience then its better to do the LLM than not.

Clearly what I say above does not apply to the situation of when a student intends to do a PhD and become an academic (although my own view here is that every academic lawyer should qualify and do a couple of years of practice-just at least to understand how the law is really applied).

As for your question about the LLM leading to the PhD. I am sure that a good LLM result from a major British university law sSchool would only help you in an application to take a PhD with any major European law school.
with best regards
ALAN RILEY

Professor Alan Riley.
LLM Director.
City Law School,
City University, London.
Electronic Mail: alan.riley.1@city.ac.uk