Biglaw lawyer taking questions Forum

[The Insider]

Hello,

What about M&C work, would you waver that the nature of the work involved there is much more "delightful" or less tedious/annoying than BigLaw work? Plus, I heard compensation in consulting is higher than in biglaw. What are your views on that? And is the kind of work in M&C less cutthroat or worrisome (if you have any idea)? Thanks.

[Renzo]

Hello,

What about M&C work, would you waver that the nature of the work involved there is much more "delightful" or less tedious/annoying than BigLaw work? Plus, I heard compensation in consulting is higher than in biglaw. What are your views on that? And is the kind of work in M&C less cutthroat or worrisome (if you have any idea)? Thanks.

Ok. I thought hard. I even googled. What's "M&C" ?

[3rdYrLitigator]

if you want to do tax law, do you need any previous experience or degrees, such as a degree in accounting/business or an LLM in tax?

I think it helps to have a background in accounting/business. I know a lot of my classmates who went into tax law came from those backgrounds, so it's probably pretty common, but that's about the extend of my experience with tax lawyers.

[3rdYrLitigator]

Thank you for taking your time to answer all the questions. This is awesome!

I'm 0L so my questions may appear stupid, but I sincerely would like to know more about:

Does having no business-related experience hurt during OCI for an M&A Big Law associateship?

Can you describe a typical M&A Big Law associate's day-to-day work?

What makes a successful M&A Big Law associate?

I don't know if having no business-related experience hurts, but having that background would help.

I really have no idea what an M&A associate's day is like, while I know a couple, I don't really know what they do on a day to day basis.

I assume what makes a successful M&A associate, like any associate, is attention to detail, the ability to produce good work under pressure, and eventually the ability to see the big picture of the deal to be able to anticipate issues before they become issues.

[3rdYrLitigator]

Thank you for your thread, it's amazing.

Could you plz tell me, do you do a lot pro bono? If yes, are they criminal work? Are they part of your billable hours? Can transactional lawyer do litigation pro bono work?

Thank you!

I've done some pro bono, mostly criminal work. A certain amount of the hours count toward billable, each firm has it's own cap, but most seem to be about 50-100 hours. Transactional lawyers can do litigation pro bono, they just need to have a partner involved.

[3rdYrLitigator]

I know you haven't specified the ranking of your firm, so this question would be based on the assumption that there are higher ranking firms than yours.

But even if you're at the no.1 firm in the country (Wacthell?), I'm sure there were a few firms that didn't give you an offer when you were going through OCI and callback interviews. (Also an assumption)

So, what do you think (in your case) made the difference on whether you got an offer or not? I'm sure that grades might have played a part, but from what I've heard grades and school ranking matter only up to a certain point (OCI?) and that during callback interviews it's just about.....well, I don't know.

What do you think made the difference to your acceptances and rejections?(if you had any rejections that is) Are there some things that you might have done differently? I mean not just during the interview but experiences during lawschool that might have helped you during your interveiw.

Thanks in advance!

Yeah, there are firms that I didn't get callbacks with (although I got an offer from the highest ranked Vault firm I applied to).

When I was going through OCI, it wasn't as competitive, but having sat on the other side of it, I think there is certainly a luck factor. Beyond catching someone on a bad day, there are a few things that set apart good candidates from bad. I know it's natural to be nervous, but if it's noticable then that's going to be a negative. I didn't do well in my first set of callbacks or interviews, but after the first few I did really well. Projective confidence, but not arrogance, and being personable are really the only things that are universals. I know I rated poorly people with great grades but who couldn't carry a conversation, because that's not someone I want to be working with at 2 AM on a Saturday.

In law school I would have tried to get my OCI to do some mock interviews with me, which I hear more schools are doing these days. I think I needed a few to get into it, which I totally blew, and then I feel like I got the hang of law interviews and did much better with the rest.

[3rdYrLitigator]

Hello,

What about M&C work, would you waver that the nature of the work involved there is much more "delightful" or less tedious/annoying than BigLaw work? Plus, I heard compensation in consulting is higher than in biglaw. What are your views on that? And is the kind of work in M&C less cutthroat or worrisome (if you have any idea)? Thanks.

Are you talking about Management Consulting? I don't know what M&C refers to, but it seems like that's what you're referring to. I think consulting at a place like McKinsey could be more lucrative, but I don't know what level a lawyer would start out at. From what I understand, the pay is comparable at the lower levels, but I really haven't looked into it that carefully. I have to think that just about any other profession is less cutthroat that Biglaw, but again, I don't have any firsthand experience.

[The Insider]

Yes I was, haha, I know I put it in the conjunctive by mistake I actually just read that at start, new MBAs at McK do not start off at 160k - does anyone know what the starting salary then is for MBB? I am getting mixed results on statistics from different sites. If it is at 160, why don't people disregard BigLaw in pursuit of MBB as compensation is higher and provides more exit opportunities? Just perplexed by this scenario. Thanks.

[UCLAtransfer]

Yes I was, haha, I know I put it in the conjunctive by mistake That's real interesting then, given that McK offers higher compensation, and the work environment is less taxing than Biglaw. Why don't people consider MC/MBA then? Plus, doesn't it give you better exit opportunities? Thanks.

Uhh, perhaps because they want to be lawyers, and not management consultants? Going to law school is not a wise path to try to get a consulting gig. If you want to going into consulting getting an MBA at a top b-school IS what people do.

[The Insider]

I know, that is agreed upon, but I always read how money matters more to lawyers, and there was that thread entitled "Consulting - the end of a legal career?" where people were discussing how MC provides better pay + exit opportunities, as well as less abrasive work. That is why I am inquiring (after reading that thread) why people don't just transition into MC if money is higher and work is better.

[Renzo]

I know, that is agreed upon, but I always read how money matters more to lawyers, and there was that thread entitled "Consulting - the end of a legal career?" where people were discussing how MC provides better pay + exit opportunities, as well as less abrasive work. That is why I am inquiring (after reading that thread) why people don't just transition into MC if money is higher and work is better.

#1) It's a harder job to get than biglaw, because there are fewer slots. #2) it's the end of your career as a lawyer, and most people who go to law school want to be lawyers #3) The work is more substantive, but the hours are arguably worse because of the travel #4) It's an even more severe up-or-out career ladder than biglaw

[Patriot1208]

I know, that is agreed upon, but I always read how money matters more to lawyers, and there was that thread entitled "Consulting - the end of a legal career?" where people were discussing how MC provides better pay + exit opportunities, as well as less abrasive work. That is why I am inquiring (after reading that thread) why people don't just transition into MC if money is higher and work is better.

Because it's very hard to do for law school students. Biglaw is easier to get for jd's.

[Patriot1208]

I know, that is agreed upon, but I always read how money matters more to lawyers, and there was that thread entitled "Consulting - the end of a legal career?" where people were discussing how MC provides better pay + exit opportunities, as well as less abrasive work. That is why I am inquiring (after reading that thread) why people don't just transition into MC if money is higher and work is better.

#1) It's a harder job to get than biglaw, because there are fewer slots. #2) it's the end of your career as a lawyer, and most people who go to law school want to be lawyers #3) The work is more substantive, but the hours are arguably worse because of the travel #4) It's an even more severe up-or-out career ladder than biglaw

This is credited except for 4. It's not really up or out, there is just high voluntary turnover. Bain specifically says they'd like consultants to stay with them for life and regularly keeps people around who don't make vice president (there version of partner but it is incorporated)

[Anonymous User]

thanks for you time 3rdYr..

How do you reckon an AA male from a T13 with top 1/3 grades gunning for NYC stands for upcoming OCI? (not sure how my interviewing skills stack up quite yet; good looks; above average with the small talk)

[Renzo]

This is credited except for 4. It's not really up or out, there is just high voluntary turnover. Bain specifically says they'd like consultants to stay with them for life and regularly keeps people around who don't make vice president (there version of partner but it is incorporated)

Uh, yeah.... They may say that. And they'll even probably trot out a few "off ramp" employees to show you that it's true. But trust me, it is not. It's like when big firms tell you, "we only hire people who we'd like to see make partner someday." It may be true, but they don't want to see all of them make partner someday.

[imchuckbass58]

I know, that is agreed upon, but I always read how money matters more to lawyers, and there was that thread entitled "Consulting - the end of a legal career?" where people were discussing how MC provides better pay + exit opportunities, as well as less abrasive work. That is why I am inquiring (after reading that thread) why people don't just transition into MC if money is higher and work is better.

#1) It's a harder job to get than biglaw, because there are fewer slots. #2) it's the end of your career as a lawyer, and most people who go to law school want to be lawyers #3) The work is more substantive, but the hours are arguably worse because of the travel #4) It's an even more severe up-or-out career ladder than biglaw

This is credited except for 4. It's not really up or out, there is just high voluntary turnover. Bain specifically says they'd like consultants to stay with them for life and regularly keeps people around who don't make vice president (there version of partner but it is incorporated)

They may say that but it's not true. I worked for a consulting firm and it's an even more rigorous up or out. McKinsey is probably the most strict - it's basically up or out every 2-3 years. At MBB, the average tenure is about 2 years, and probably 1/10 stick around to make partner.

[The Insider]

I don't intend to hijack the thread, but how was your experience in the consulting firm, or MBB (i.e., nature of work) and do you think it is less strenuous and more enjoyable than BigLaw work? I also read that BigLaw work is even more tedious than Investment Banking, but we're talking about consulting right now, so your opinions are appreciated. Thanks.

[nealric]

I think it helps to have a background in accounting/business. I know a lot of my classmates who went into tax law came from those backgrounds, so it's probably pretty common, but that's about the extend of my experience with tax lawyers.

Those are the people who are often interested in tax, but it's hardly necessary (at least at the biglaw level). I would argue that philosophy is more relevant to tax than accounting.

[d34d9823]

I would argue that philosophy is more relevant to tax than accounting.

Very interested to hear why.

[Anonymous User]

Hi 3rdYear, thanks for taking questions.

Is it possible for a senior associate at a prestigious firm to lateral into a partnership position at a smaller firm? If so, where would (for example) a V10 senior associate transfer to (V100)?

[3rdYrLitigator]

Yes I was, haha, I know I put it in the conjunctive by mistake I actually just read that at start, new MBAs at McK do not start off at 160k - does anyone know what the starting salary then is for MBB? I am getting mixed results on statistics from different sites. If it is at 160, why don't people disregard BigLaw in pursuit of MBB as compensation is higher and provides more exit opportunities? Just perplexed by this scenario. Thanks.

I think because most people want to be lawyers, not consultants. If you want to do MBB, go to business school. And while some of those consultancies recruit at top schools, they don't recruit at many schools and they don't take that many people.

[3rdYrLitigator]

thanks for you time 3rdYr..

How do you reckon an AA male from a T13 with top 1/3 grades gunning for NYC stands for upcoming OCI? (not sure how my interviewing skills stack up quite yet; good looks; above average with the small talk)

I'd imagine you'd do very well with top 1/3 grades and above average social skills.

[3rdYrLitigator]

I think it helps to have a background in accounting/business. I know a lot of my classmates who went into tax law came from those backgrounds, so it's probably pretty common, but that's about the extend of my experience with tax lawyers.

Those are the people who are often interested in tax, but it's hardly necessary (at least at the biglaw level). I would argue that philosophy is more relevant to tax than accounting.

Could be, I have no experience with actual tax law.

[3rdYrLitigator]

Hi 3rdYear, thanks for taking questions.

Is it possible for a senior associate at a prestigious firm to lateral into a partnership position at a smaller firm? If so, where would (for example) a V10 senior associate transfer to (V100)?

It's possible, but I doubt from V10 to V100, though I don't know that for sure. I've seen it happen from big to mid law though.

[d34d9823]

Hi 3rdYear, thanks for taking questions.

Is it possible for a senior associate at a prestigious firm to lateral into a partnership position at a smaller firm? If so, where would (for example) a V10 senior associate transfer to (V100)?

It's possible, but I doubt from V10 to V100, though I don't know that for sure. I've seen it happen from big to mid law though.

So basically, if you don't make partner at your firm, you are screwed for partnership at anything close to the same level?