V10 Midlevel Associate. Taking Questions. Forum

[Anonymous User]

In your experience, which corporate practice groups have the most reasonable hours coupled with the broadest exposure to general corporate drafting? I'd like to gain as much general corporate experience as possible, but the M&A lifestyle scares me. I'd prefer not to make getting home at 1 AM a routine habit.

[Old Gregg]

In your experience, which corporate practice groups have the most reasonable hours coupled with the broadest exposure to general corporate drafting? I'd like to gain as much general corporate experience as possible, but the M&A lifestyle scares me. I'd prefer not to make getting home at 1 AM a routine habit.

You can't be serious.

If you want to get experience drafting merger documents, you have to do... surprise... mergers and acquisitions.

Specialists, like ERISA and exec comp, ostensibly have more reasonable hours, but they are not primarily involved with drafting the merger documents in a deal. They basically comment on their portions of the merger agreement (typically reps and warranties, which influence the indemnities), but will not have a say on, say, general indemnities, closing covenants, general reps and warranties, etc. that form the main components of a merger agreement.

If you want broad exposure to drafting a merger agreement, you have to do M&A. In fact, when specialists such as ERISA or exec comp make comments to a merger agreement, you don't just blindly put them in. You have to understand what they are, what they do, and how they interact with the general corporate provisions in the agreement. At times, you might have to revise their comments. As such, being an M&A attorney means not only drafting the corporate aspects of a merger agreement, it also means understanding all those other specialty areas to the point where you can negotiate on their behalf/draft their portions of the agreement as well.

[Anonymous User]

3L at CCN going to Weil/Kirkland next year.

If you were deciding between Weil/Kirkland BK and general corporate work, which would you slot into knowing what you know now?

Are you asking if you should choose Weil v. Kirkland, if you should choose bankruptcy v. general corporate, or some other question altogether?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question. I am going to one of Weil/Kirkland, so both all-star restructuring practices. I enjoyed the restructuring work I did as a summer but am afraid of the narrow exit options and the group bills, on average, 2500-2700 or so per year. Part of me wonders if I should attempt to make a switch into corporate in order to broaden my exit options and avoid having to bill 3000 to stand out.

Thoughts?

[Torney12]

In your experience, which corporate practice groups have the most reasonable hours coupled with the broadest exposure to general corporate drafting? I'd like to gain as much general corporate experience as possible, but the M&A lifestyle scares me. I'd prefer not to make getting home at 1 AM a routine habit.

You can't be serious.

If you want to get experience drafting merger documents, you have to do... surprise... mergers and acquisitions.

Specialists, like ERISA and exec comp, ostensibly have more reasonable hours, but they are not primarily involved with drafting the merger documents in a deal. They basically comment on their portions of the merger agreement (typically reps and warranties, which influence the indemnities), but will not have a say on, say, general indemnities, closing covenants, general reps and warranties, etc. that form the main components of a merger agreement.

If you want broad exposure to drafting a merger agreement, you have to do M&A. In fact, when specialists such as ERISA or exec comp make comments to a merger agreement, you don't just blindly put them in. You have to understand what they are, what they do, and how they interact with the general corporate provisions in the agreement. At times, you might have to revise their comments. As such, being an M&A attorney means not only drafting the corporate aspects of a merger agreement, it also means understanding all those other specialty areas to the point where you can negotiate on their behalf/draft their portions of the agreement as well.

Basically, this person has it right.

[005618502]

Wanted to tag this thread. I dont know if this has been answered (I didnt see it) but I was curious how often you are hit up by "head hunters" trying to get you to leave for a different place/position. Is it often? How often (if ever) do the opportunities pay as much as you are currently making? Do you think that being in corporate gives a big leg up on exit options over litigation?

[Old Gregg]

3L at CCN going to Weil/Kirkland next year.

If you were deciding between Weil/Kirkland BK and general corporate work, which would you slot into knowing what you know now?

Are you asking if you should choose Weil v. Kirkland, if you should choose bankruptcy v. general corporate, or some other question altogether?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question. I am going to one of Weil/Kirkland, so both all-star restructuring practices. I enjoyed the restructuring work I did as a summer but am afraid of the narrow exit options and the group bills, on average, 2500-2700 or so per year. Part of me wonders if I should attempt to make a switch into corporate in order to broaden my exit options and avoid having to bill 3000 to stand out.

Thoughts?

The corporate groups at either at those firms average around 2500-2700 hours per year, and a lot of associates are peer pressured into billing 3,000 in order to stand out. Welcome to NYC biglaw.

[Old Gregg]

Wanted to tag this thread. I dont know if this has been answered (I didnt see it) but I was curious how often you are hit up by "head hunters" trying to get you to leave for a different place/position. Is it often? How often (if ever) do the opportunities pay as much as you are currently making? Do you think that being in corporate gives a big leg up on exit options over litigation?

Can't speak for Torney12, but I'm a junior associate at a V10 and I get roughly 1-2 emails/calls per day.

All have been for other law firms, some have been for inhouse where base pay starts at anywhere from 120k to market biglaw (which is fine considering my level of seniority, but doesn't really indicate the overall pay as it doesn't include bonus). I've also just started getting calls for positions at private equity funds (not compliance or legal counsel positions, however).

I am quickly beginning to learn that the jobs you want aren't fed to you by a headhunter. For the most part, and tourney can correct me if I'm wrong, they're gained by doing good work for people whom you might want to work for. A lot of my more senior colleagues constantly receive soft feelers for positions at other firms, private equity and hedge fund positions, and even equity partnership at other firms. These feelers weren't from headhunters; they were from main players on deals these associates worked on and were all stars on. When you're good, everyone, not just the partner you're working with, notices.

[Anonymous User]

3L at CCN going to Weil/Kirkland next year.

If you were deciding between Weil/Kirkland BK and general corporate work, which would you slot into knowing what you know now?

Are you asking if you should choose Weil v. Kirkland, if you should choose bankruptcy v. general corporate, or some other question altogether?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question. I am going to one of Weil/Kirkland, so both all-star restructuring practices. I enjoyed the restructuring work I did as a summer but am afraid of the narrow exit options and the group bills, on average, 2500-2700 or so per year. Part of me wonders if I should attempt to make a switch into corporate in order to broaden my exit options and avoid having to bill 3000 to stand out.

Thoughts?

The corporate groups at either at those firms average around 2500-2700 hours per year, and a lot of associates are peer pressured into billing 3,000 in order to stand out. Welcome to NYC biglaw.

False for at least one of these firms as I was shown a break down of average billables by group. Regardless, can you address my second concern pertaining to exit options and long-term career prospects between top restructuring and corporate?

Despite my own belief that I'm a special snowflake, I doubt I'll be the 1-5% of restructuring attorneys who exit to a vulture fund/Lazard/Blackstone. That pretty much leaves lateraling to a shittier firm with a shittier restructuring practice.

[Old Gregg]

False for at least one of these firms as I was shown a break down of average billables by group. Regardless, can you address my second concern pertaining to exit options and long-term career prospects between top restructuring and corporate?

Averages don't tell the whole story. They include the "tourists." I can tell you right now that if you want to be taken seriously at any of these firms, you have to bill at least 2,400 hours. That's been my experience, but am open to others who are practicing associates at these places to offer a different one.

I don't know the difference in "exit options" between restructuring and corporate. My post just after this one was meant to demonstrate that you can't be type-A about this and it's difficult to measure things like this, since job opportunities at this stage in one's career depend more on networking and being in the right place at the right time and doing the right things at that time. If you're doing restructuring and you impress someone enough at Greenhill, you might be able to score a job there that way. If you're doing corporate and you do nothing but work and never really try to present yourself to a client or opposing counsel, etc., you will have a harder time. And vice versa.

There's no matrix where someone can tell you "restructuring at Firm A" leads to x y z whereas "corporate at Firm B" leads to p q r. And more often than not, a lot of my friends at significantly lower ranked firms (or even unranked ones) have found pretty prestigious jobs that I would envy. There's just more to the equation than that.

But, a more experienced attorney in restructuring can chime in.

[Anonymous User]

Good Advice.

Thank you. I guess I'll just have to network my balls off to make sure doors are open.

[Old Gregg]

Good Advice.

Thank you. I guess I'll just have to network my balls off to make sure doors are open.

No problem. Happy to help.

This is a lot harder than it sounds, to be honest. I do so much work I barely have time for my SO, much less time to network and build connections (for building clients or career opportunities). It's one of my bigger complaints about working in biglaw. You really have to manage your time well--to good work, do lots of it, network with partners, network with potential clients, network with clients, etc. There are just so many elements to the equation, and it doesn't help that you're billing so many hours.

If you're really eager to see what happens to associates in either groups, ask around. Hopefully you made some friends with more senior associates at these firms who can give you some perspective on typical exits. Law firms are gossip mills, so everyone tends to know something about everyone, past and present. Aside from that, departure emails are also really helpful. You can also try linked in. Look for people who used to work at your firm in that department (or peer firms in that department) and see what they're doing now.

That's really the best you can do at this point.

[Torney12]

Wanted to tag this thread. I dont know if this has been answered (I didnt see it) but I was curious how often you are hit up by "head hunters" trying to get you to leave for a different place/position. Is it often? How often (if ever) do the opportunities pay as much as you are currently making? Do you think that being in corporate gives a big leg up on exit options over litigation?

I hear from head hunters every day several times a day. This is neither here nor there because you can have about 20 head hunters calling you with different descriptions for what turns out to be the same job. I am going to take this opportunity to answer a question you didn't ask, but should have asked: is using head hungers desirable? Head hunters are most useful for junior associates because junior associates tend to focus almost exclusively on not taking too big a cut in pay and prestige. They are not yet career-minded as much as they are security-minded. Midlevels and senior associates, however, are 5, 7, even 9 years into our careers and thus, tend to be more concerned about whether we will be able to continue to build our careers wherever we are going. A head hunter can place you in a high paying "prestigious" position, but s/he can't build connections there for you. Thus, a successful midlevel or senior associate should be less interested in head hunters than s/he is in using existing connections to make the transition from big law to a welcoming place. Accordingly, I have always ignored head hunters because I plan to write my own ticket out of here if/when I decide to leave. I don't want to end up just another face wherever I go. The whole point of currying favor, doing favors, keeping in touch, and working hard to build connections is so that you have people in your corner who can make calls to decisionmakers or who are actually decisionmakers at places you want to end up. Naturally, it takes time to build these connections, so again, if you end up lateraling early in your career, you will likely have to use head hunters.

As far as whether corporate has better exit options than litigation, that is a strange question because the destinations are completely different in corporate than in litigation. Litigators want to exit to the USAO, litigation boutiques, litigation groups at firms etc. Corporate associates want to go to venture capital, in-house positions, sometimes government positions like the SEC, corporate groups at firms etc. Litigators' exit options rarely overlap with corporate associates' exit options, so what you should be asking is which side, litigation or corporate, will help you end up where you are aiming to go.

[Torney12]

Wanted to tag this thread. I dont know if this has been answered (I didnt see it) but I was curious how often you are hit up by "head hunters" trying to get you to leave for a different place/position. Is it often? How often (if ever) do the opportunities pay as much as you are currently making? Do you think that being in corporate gives a big leg up on exit options over litigation?

Can't speak for Torney12, but I'm a junior associate at a V10 and I get roughly 1-2 emails/calls per day.

All have been for other law firms, some have been for inhouse where base pay starts at anywhere from 120k to market biglaw (which is fine considering my level of seniority, but doesn't really indicate the overall pay as it doesn't include bonus). I've also just started getting calls for positions at private equity funds (not compliance or legal counsel positions, however).

I am quickly beginning to learn that the jobs you want aren't fed to you by a headhunter. For the most part, and tourney can correct me if I'm wrong, they're gained by doing good work for people whom you might want to work for. A lot of my more senior colleagues constantly receive soft feelers for positions at other firms, private equity and hedge fund positions, and even equity partnership at other firms. These feelers weren't from headhunters; they were from main players on deals these associates worked on and were all stars on. When you're good, everyone, not just the partner you're working with, notices.

I completely agree with you and indeed, the higher you go, the truer it will be that you have to generate your exit options from the connections you have. For instance, for a 7th year to have little option but to resort to head hunters is a sign that s/he has not done the type of networking for the past 7 years that s/he should have. I should add though that associates can't always take advantage of partners and partners' clients (nowadays, firms don't have clients; partners have clients) because sometimes these associates are leaving precisely because those they are working with are the ones thwarting their advancement. It isn't often wise to rely on connections that are tied to the oppressors one is fleeing. Even in such situations, however, midlevel and senior associates should have sufficient connections among, for instance, counterparts at peer firms, former colleagues, and those encountered through professional organizations, to be able to make use of those people as leads. Of course, associates who have put their eggs in one basket (the firm) will often have very weak connections outside the firm, but that's why I never advise letting the firm completely dominate your professional life.

[Torney12]

False for at least one of these firms as I was shown a break down of average billables by group. Regardless, can you address my second concern pertaining to exit options and long-term career prospects between top restructuring and corporate?

Averages don't tell the whole story. They include the "tourists." I can tell you right now that if you want to be taken seriously at any of these firms, you have to bill at least 2,400 hours. That's been my experience, but am open to others who are practicing associates at these places to offer a different one.

I don't know the difference in "exit options" between restructuring and corporate. My post just after this one was meant to demonstrate that you can't be type-A about this and it's difficult to measure things like this, since job opportunities at this stage in one's career depend more on networking and being in the right place at the right time and doing the right things at that time. If you're doing restructuring and you impress someone enough at Greenhill, you might be able to score a job there that way. If you're doing corporate and you do nothing but work and never really try to present yourself to a client or opposing counsel, etc., you will have a harder time. And vice versa.

There's no matrix where someone can tell you "restructuring at Firm A" leads to x y z whereas "corporate at Firm B" leads to p q r. And more often than not, a lot of my friends at significantly lower ranked firms (or even unranked ones) have found pretty prestigious jobs that I would envy. There's just more to the equation than that.

But, a more experienced attorney in restructuring can chime in.

Agreed 100%. Especially the parts in bold.

[Torney12]

3L at CCN going to Weil/Kirkland next year.

If you were deciding between Weil/Kirkland BK and general corporate work, which would you slot into knowing what you know now?

Are you asking if you should choose Weil v. Kirkland, if you should choose bankruptcy v. general corporate, or some other question altogether?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question. I am going to one of Weil/Kirkland, so both all-star restructuring practices. I enjoyed the restructuring work I did as a summer but am afraid of the narrow exit options and the group bills, on average, 2500-2700 or so per year. Part of me wonders if I should attempt to make a switch into corporate in order to broaden my exit options and avoid having to bill 3000 to stand out.

Thoughts?

Fresh prince has given you great responses, but the question still remains: what do you want to do after big law? One can't responsibly discuss exit options in the air. I need to know where you want to exit to, when you want to exit, and what your credentials are in order to be able to advise you re: which group to go to.

[Anonymous User]

Is it possible to lateral as a midlevel from a lower vault ranked firm to a higher vault ranked firm in New York?

[Anonymous User]

Is it possible to lateral as a midlevel from a lower vault ranked firm to a higher vault ranked firm in New York?

Yes, definitely. Even the elite New York firms (S&C, Davis Polk, Simpson Thatcher, Skadden, etc.) regularly take mid-level laterals from lower-ranked vault firms (exception: Cravath and Wachtell rarely take laterals). Every firm wants skilled mid-levels-- it's these kind of lawyers who generate the most profit for partners. Given the high (and unpredictable) rate of attrition, most firms will gladly accept laterals from "less prestigious" firms if they can do the work and the firm needs someone with that experience.

[Anonymous User]

Is it possible to lateral as a midlevel from a lower vault ranked firm to a higher vault ranked firm in New York?

Yes, definitely. Even the elite New York firms (S&C, Davis Polk, Simpson Thatcher, Skadden, etc.) regularly take mid-level laterals from lower-ranked vault firms (exception: Cravath and Wachtell rarely take laterals). Every firm wants skilled mid-levels-- it's these kind of lawyers who generate the most profit for partners. Given the high (and unpredictable) rate of attrition, most firms will gladly accept laterals from "less prestigious" firms if they can do the work and the firm needs someone with that experience.

Is this less true for out-of-city hires with whom the firm hasn't worked before? I'm doing a 1L SA in a non-vault secondary market Midwestern firm and am wondering if staying there over the medium term would bar me from ever moving back to Chicago or somewhere if I ever wanted to. Would taking that firm over Sidley or similar be the end of my mobility?

If you don't have much knowledge of places out (mid)West I understand. Thanks!

[Torney12]

Is it possible to lateral as a midlevel from a lower vault ranked firm to a higher vault ranked firm in New York?

It's possible, though you have to have truly noteworthy credentials and experience. How likely it is that you'll be able to pull this off also depends on how much lower your current firm is than the firm you're aiming for. If you're aiming for S&C and coming from something in the V30 and below range, you have a much tougher and much less likely road than if you're coming from, for instance, a firm in the range of Paul Weiss.

[Torney12]

Is it possible to lateral as a midlevel from a lower vault ranked firm to a higher vault ranked firm in New York?

Yes, definitely. Even the elite New York firms (S&C, Davis Polk, Simpson Thatcher, Skadden, etc.) regularly take mid-level laterals from lower-ranked vault firms (exception: Cravath and Wachtell rarely take laterals). Every firm wants skilled mid-levels-- it's these kind of lawyers who generate the most profit for partners. Given the high (and unpredictable) rate of attrition, most firms will gladly accept laterals from "less prestigious" firms if they can do the work and the firm needs someone with that experience.

V10s take midlevels from lower ranked firms, but if you're suggesting that V10s "regularly" take midlevels from much lower ranked firms, then this is not true. You're almost never going to see S&C taking a lateral from, for instance, McDermott, Will & Emery. At every vault level, midlevels get booted out of their firms every day. There's no shortage of skilled midlevels at peer V10s and firms in the V20 range for V10s to choose from.

[Torney12]

Is it possible to lateral as a midlevel from a lower vault ranked firm to a higher vault ranked firm in New York?

Yes, definitely. Even the elite New York firms (S&C, Davis Polk, Simpson Thatcher, Skadden, etc.) regularly take mid-level laterals from lower-ranked vault firms (exception: Cravath and Wachtell rarely take laterals). Every firm wants skilled mid-levels-- it's these kind of lawyers who generate the most profit for partners. Given the high (and unpredictable) rate of attrition, most firms will gladly accept laterals from "less prestigious" firms if they can do the work and the firm needs someone with that experience.

Is this less true for out-of-city hires with whom the firm hasn't worked before? I'm doing a 1L SA in a non-vault secondary market Midwestern firm and am wondering if staying there over the medium term would bar me from ever moving back to Chicago or somewhere if I ever wanted to. Would taking that firm over Sidley or similar be the end of my mobility?

If you don't have much knowledge of places out (mid)West I understand. Thanks!

The odds of you being able to go to a non-vault secondary market firm for 4 to 6 years and then switch to a well regarded big law firm in a major market are very, very low. In fact, unless you were top of your class at a top 7 school and have amazing connections in law and finance, you should plan on that sort of move not being possible. As a general rule, people lateral to firms ranked lower than their firms and even stars who lateral to higher ranked firms aren't coming from the middle of nowhere and ending up at top firms. I don't know why you would even even take such an indirect winding path when your goal is to end up at a big law firm and you already have the opportunity to go straight to a big law firm.

[hume85]

Tagged. Thank you Torney12 and Fresh Prince for making TLS such a valuable source of information.

[Old Gregg]

V10s take midlevels from lower ranked firms, but if you're suggesting that V10s "regularly" take midlevels from much lower ranked firms, then this is not true. You're almost never going to see S&C taking a lateral from, for instance, McDermott, Will & Emery. At every vault level, midlevels get booted out of their firms every day. There's no shortage of skilled midlevels at peer V10s and firms in the V20 range for V10s to choose from.

This is right. The hoops you have to jump through to go from Simpson to S&C are a lot fewer than the hoops you have to jump through to go from, say, Mayer Brown NY to S&C.

Another aspect a lot of questions here are forgetting is experience. 100% of these jumps are not based solely on rank. They're based on what you did as an attorney at the prior firm. As a midlevel, you need to demonstrate the ability to hit the ground running. While there are plenty of midlevels out there, there are not nearly as many midlevels who have built up the skill set to be able to thrive at a place like S&C.

[Anonymous User]

3L at CCN going to Weil/Kirkland next year.

If you were deciding between Weil/Kirkland BK and general corporate work, which would you slot into knowing what you know now?

Are you asking if you should choose Weil v. Kirkland, if you should choose bankruptcy v. general corporate, or some other question altogether?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question. I am going to one of Weil/Kirkland, so both all-star restructuring practices. I enjoyed the restructuring work I did as a summer but am afraid of the narrow exit options and the group bills, on average, 2500-2700 or so per year. Part of me wonders if I should attempt to make a switch into corporate in order to broaden my exit options and avoid having to bill 3000 to stand out.

Thoughts?

Fresh prince has given you great responses, but the question still remains: what do you want to do after big law? One can't responsibly discuss exit options in the air. I need to know where you want to exit to, when you want to exit, and what your credentials are in order to be able to advise you re: which group to go to.

PM'd.

[Torney12]

V10s take midlevels from lower ranked firms, but if you're suggesting that V10s "regularly" take midlevels from much lower ranked firms, then this is not true. You're almost never going to see S&C taking a lateral from, for instance, McDermott, Will & Emery. At every vault level, midlevels get booted out of their firms every day. There's no shortage of skilled midlevels at peer V10s and firms in the V20 range for V10s to choose from.

This is right. The hoops you have to jump through to go from Simpson to S&C are a lot fewer than the hoops you have to jump through to go from, say, Mayer Brown NY to S&C.

Another aspect a lot of questions here are forgetting is experience. 100% of these jumps are not based solely on rank. They're based on what you did as an attorney at the prior firm. As a midlevel, you need to demonstrate the ability to hit the ground running. While there are plenty of midlevels out there, there are not nearly as many midlevels who have built up the skill set to be able to thrive at a place like S&C.

Agreed and if anything, 90% of a jump as a midlevel is based on your experience. Firms are trying to get rid of their own shiftless midlevels, not hire other firms' rejects. Hand-holding is for junior associates and no one wants to waste a good salary on a midlevel who can't be trusted to do great work on a broad range of assignments with little supervision. Coming from a good firm will help, but if your resume doesn't show substantive experience, your exit options will shrink considerably.