Consulting - the end of a legal career? Forum

[ruski]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

[Blindmelon]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

[vamedic03]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

Why? Why does this have to be wrong? Have you investigated this or obtained any data whatsoever?

Associates starting at the same base occurs in law firms, consulting groups, and i-banks. What's so shocking about this?

[ruski]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

this makes perfect sense. if it makes u feel better say the law student has done banking and is entering the m&a group at cravath. he still starts out at 160k. and by ur logic ur saying the mba's with consulting experience make more than the mbas with other types of work experience - this is not true.

im not saying you dont make a good point or that maybe things should be different. but this doesn't change the fact you are wrong and may be confusing others on this board. this is just how it is.

[Seally]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

The thing is that JDs HAVE to be recruited as Associates, I-Banks and Consulting firms would never get a fresh-out JD for an Analyst position because that candidate would be stuck somewhere between Analyst-Associate.

Also, 99% of I-Banks out there will recruit JDs with at least 3 years of Corporate Law experience in BigLaw to fill Associate positions.

For consulting firms, it can be straight out Law School for hiring, but they will make sure that the Law student graduating has a "minimum" of Business knowledge before giving him an offer, when i say minimum, no need to get an MBA, even though it would help, but some basic knowledge.And it's to fill Associate positions as well, Analyst positions are for UG Grads that have to get into the beat to do to real job.

[motiontodismiss]

Big finance, consulting and law all start out their new hires on the same pay package. What varies between people is the barriers to entry. An ex-McKinsey analyst is more likely to get into McKinsey post JD/MBA/whatever than an ex-Skadden paralegal for ex.

[Renzo]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

Yeah, sorry. The big consultancies are as lock-step as the big firms (as far as hiring, it spreads more when you're up-ramp). Everyone is a first-year associate.

[Patriot1208]

Anyone here who is in consulting or worked in consulting for awhile after undergrad, pm me please.

[Blindmelon]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

The thing is that JDs HAVE to be recruited as Associates, I-Banks and Consulting firms would never get a fresh-out JD for an Analyst position because that candidate would be stuck somewhere between Analyst-Associate.

Also, 99% of I-Banks out there will recruit JDs with at least 3 years of Corporate Law experience in BigLaw to fill Associate positions.

For consulting firms, it can be straight out Law School for hiring, but they will make sure that the Law student graduating has a "minimum" of Business knowledge before giving him an offer, when i say minimum, no need to get an MBA, even though it would help, but some basic knowledge.And it's to fill Associate positions as well, Analyst positions are for UG Grads that have to get into the beat to do to real job.

Well, if thats true, and I extremely doubt it, then shouldn't everyone go to law school for consulting instead of consulting -> mba -> consulting?
Also, unlike biglaw, most consulting firms aren't "lockstep". When I was hired, all the new people spilled their salaries, and those with stronger backgrounds or who were able to negotiate better got more money. After the first year people got raises in gradations of anywhere from 4 to 20%.

[ruski]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

The thing is that JDs HAVE to be recruited as Associates, I-Banks and Consulting firms would never get a fresh-out JD for an Analyst position because that candidate would be stuck somewhere between Analyst-Associate.

Also, 99% of I-Banks out there will recruit JDs with at least 3 years of Corporate Law experience in BigLaw to fill Associate positions.

For consulting firms, it can be straight out Law School for hiring, but they will make sure that the Law student graduating has a "minimum" of Business knowledge before giving him an offer, when i say minimum, no need to get an MBA, even though it would help, but some basic knowledge.And it's to fill Associate positions as well, Analyst positions are for UG Grads that have to get into the beat to do to real job.

Well, if thats true, and I extremely doubt it, then shouldn't everyone go to law school for consulting instead of consulting -> mba -> consulting?
Also, unlike biglaw, most consulting firms aren't "lockstep". When I was hired, all the new people spilled their salaries, and those with stronger backgrounds or who were able to negotiate better got more money. After the first year people got raises in gradations of anywhere from 4 to 20%.

as stated before in this thread, consulting firms actively recruit mbas. they don't actively recruit jds (except mckinsey). the jd would have an uphill battle convincing them he is familiar with the major finance/economic principles.

and no offense, but the consulting firm you worked for was probably not that good. none of the top ones allow incomers to negotiate salary (unless we are talking about upper management level which i doubt is the case here). i assume in this thread we were only referring to bcg, bain, and mckinsey, and maybe a handful of others.

[imchuckbass58]

Well, if thats true, and I extremely doubt it, then shouldn't everyone go to law school for consulting instead of consulting -> mba -> consulting?
Also, unlike biglaw, most consulting firms aren't "lockstep". When I was hired, all the new people spilled their salaries, and those with stronger backgrounds or who were able to negotiate better got more money. After the first year people got raises in gradations of anywhere from 4 to 20%.

It's absolutely true that consulting firms start JDs at associate and associates all make the same money. I worked in consulting, have literally a couple of dozen friends still in consulting with various firms, and know probably 4 or 5 JDs who are associates, 2 of whom came straight out of undergrad.

And as long as we're talking about management consulting (Bain, BCG, McKinsey, and a few others like Monitor, LEK and Oliver Wyman), yes, they are lockstep in the sense that everyone gets paid the same to start at a given position (thought the rate of increase variesafter that)

[vamedic03]

^ this is correct. there is no position between analyst and associate and they won't make one up just for JDs. it would be like a law student who is going to work at cravath requests to start out at a 3rd year associates pay because he has several years of work experience. its just not done. these are set salaries/positions.

Your example makes 0 sense. Those who get JDs and work at firms don't have lawyer experience, because they're not lawyers yet.

Those who go onto to MBAs sometimes have consulting backgrounds. Remember, you don't need a graduate degree AT ALL to do consulting. So I think its really suspect that someone could work at BCG for 5 years -> Kellog or whatever MBA -> make the same as a 24 year old JD with 0 work experience. In fact, this has to be wrong.

The thing is that JDs HAVE to be recruited as Associates, I-Banks and Consulting firms would never get a fresh-out JD for an Analyst position because that candidate would be stuck somewhere between Analyst-Associate.

Also, 99% of I-Banks out there will recruit JDs with at least 3 years of Corporate Law experience in BigLaw to fill Associate positions.

For consulting firms, it can be straight out Law School for hiring, but they will make sure that the Law student graduating has a "minimum" of Business knowledge before giving him an offer, when i say minimum, no need to get an MBA, even though it would help, but some basic knowledge.And it's to fill Associate positions as well, Analyst positions are for UG Grads that have to get into the beat to do to real job.

Well, if thats true, and I extremely doubt it, then shouldn't everyone go to law school for consulting instead of consulting -> mba -> consulting?
Also, unlike biglaw, most consulting firms aren't "lockstep". When I was hired, all the new people spilled their salaries, and those with stronger backgrounds or who were able to negotiate better got more money. After the first year people got raises in gradations of anywhere from 4 to 20%.

Dude, why would anyone waste the time, money and stress on law school to do consulting? If someone wants to do consulting, they do analyst -> MBA -> associate. But, some places happen to hire some exceptional JD's. I don't understand why you continue to argue against everyone's insight here just because it doesn't seem right to you.

[glewz]

Well, if thats true, and I extremely doubt it, then shouldn't everyone go to law school for consulting instead of consulting -> mba -> consulting?
Also, unlike biglaw, most consulting firms aren't "lockstep". When I was hired, all the new people spilled their salaries, and those with stronger backgrounds or who were able to negotiate better got more money. After the first year people got raises in gradations of anywhere from 4 to 20%.

It's absolutely true that consulting firms start JDs at associate and associates all make the same money. I worked in consulting, have literally a couple of dozen friends still in consulting with various firms, and know probably 4 or 5 JDs who are associates, 2 of whom came straight out of undergrad.

And as long as we're talking about management consulting (Bain, BCG, McKinsey, and a few others like Monitor, LEK and Oliver Wyman), yes, they are lockstep in the sense that everyone gets paid the same to start at a given position (thought the rate of increase variesafter that)

Not entirely exact, but pretty close to correct: Some firms will give you up to 30K more to sign with them, and depending on a strew of factors, base salary varies by a few grand. In nearly all cases, you can't negotiate, but there are still some exceptional situations.

[glewz]

redacted

[vamedic03]

Dude, why would anyone waste the time, money and stress on law school to do consulting? If someone wants to do consulting, they do analyst -> MBA -> associate. But, some places happen to hire some exceptional JD's. I don't understand why you continue to argue against everyone's insight here just because it doesn't seem right to you.

20-20 hindsight will probably reverse many JD students' decisions to pursue law school. If you go into law school, you likely aren't dying to pursue consulting. (the exception is perhaps JD/MBA candidates)

Also, consider the current job market.

My post was in response to BlindMelon's continual instance that consulting associates don't start at lockstep regardless of whether they are JD versus MBA.

[glewz]

Dude, why would anyone waste the time, money and stress on law school to do consulting? If someone wants to do consulting, they do analyst -> MBA -> associate. But, some places happen to hire some exceptional JD's. I don't understand why you continue to argue against everyone's insight here just because it doesn't seem right to you.

20-20 hindsight will probably reverse many JD students' decisions to pursue law school. If you go into law school, you likely aren't dying to pursue consulting. (the exception is perhaps JD/MBA candidates)

Also, consider the current job market.

My post was in response to BlindMelon's continual instance that consulting associates don't start at lockstep regardless of whether they are JD versus MBA.

My bad - erased my previous post.

There is difference in case placement, but not in $ or title. This is assuming of course, that you are all in the same office. I don't know whether there are differences in regional placement (though I'd think so).

[Seally]

Dude, why would anyone waste the time, money and stress on law school to do consulting? If someone wants to do consulting, they do analyst -> MBA -> associate. But, some places happen to hire some exceptional JD's. I don't understand why you continue to argue against everyone's insight here just because it doesn't seem right to you.

Just like some people prefer burning 250,000$ into Med School and end up doing Research for 120k/year tops while they would have had the chance to become Physicians and make at least 160k.

The best way to Research is the Ph.D. and doesn't cost 250,000$ and additionnal years to become a Physician, but you'll see tons of M.D. holders doing it because it's what they prefer.

Some people change their minds in the last minute, some others got accepted to a Top Law School but not to a Top Business School, so they see the Law School opportunity as a "decent stepping stone".
Just let them be, some succeed, some don't, it's all about you and what you prefer.

[Voyager]

"Dude, why would anyone waste the time, money and stress on law school to do consulting?"

Ah, such a good question. I wish I had gone to get an MBA instead. But I did not. Luckily I landed a Big 3 job anyway.

More pay, fewer hours, more interesting work. Taking questions.

EDIT: JESUS. So much misinformation in this thread. Heads up: if you don't know what you are talking about, pipe down.

As a JD I was hired as an associate... same level as the MBAs. I am able to work on ANY project. They put you through a very intense training program to get you up to speed. That said, I have an extensive business background and am good at math, so I picked it up fast.

I know quite a few JDs in my office. Many are from Harvard. A couple Columbia people.

Pay: if you include all of the bonuses you get, you will make more than the JDs who get big law. With signing bonus, call it something like $190k at the end of the first year. Also, at my firm JD and MBA pay is the same... although of course the performance bonus will vary on the individual.

EDIT2: biglaw work is utter shit, by the way. I talk to my friends doing it... holy christ are their lives miserable. Sunday deadlines, dreary work, no real creativity involved. Awful.

EDIT3: As to the OP's original question: if you spend 2 years consulting what firm in its right mind would hire you as an attorney? Once you take this step, you are not coming back to the law. But look on the bright side: being a lawyer is pure shit. Complete shit. Long hours, tedious work, incompetent leaders, no opportunity to set work/life boundaries. GET OUT. I mean, I did not really appreiate how awful it was until I began comparing my life with those of my classmates. God they have it rough.

[megaTTTron]

"Dude, why would anyone waste the time, money and stress on law school to do consulting?"

Ah, such a good question. I wish I had gone to get an MBA instead. But I did not. Luckily I landed a Big 3 job anyway.

More pay, fewer hours, more interesting work. Taking questions.

EDIT: JESUS. So much misinformation in this thread. Heads up: if you don't know what you are talking about, pipe down.

As a JD I was hired as an associate... same level as the MBAs. I am able to work on ANY project. They put you through a very intense training program to get you up to speed. That said, I have an extensive business background and am good at math, so I picked it up fast.

I know quite a few JDs in my office. Many are from Harvard. A couple Columbia people.

Pay: if you include all of the bonuses you get, you will make more than the JDs who get big law. With signing bonus, call it something like $190k at the end of the first year. Also, at my firm JD and MBA pay is the same... although of course the performance bonus will vary on the individual.

EDIT2: biglaw work is utter shit, by the way. I talk to my friends doing it... holy christ are their lives miserable. Sunday deadlines, dreary work, no real creativity involved. Awful.

EDIT3: As to the OP's original question: if you spend 2 years consulting what firm in its right mind would hire you as an attorney? Once you take this step, you are not coming back to the law. But look on the bright side: being a lawyer is pure shit. Complete shit. Long hours, tedious work, incompetent leaders, no opportunity to set work/life boundaries. GET OUT. I mean, I did not really appreiate how awful it was until I began comparing my life with those of my classmates. God they have it rough.

I like this post.

[3ThrowAway99]

What do these positions usually start at? Is there a top-market wage equivalent for a J.D. consulting position out of law school (e.g. 160k for BigLaw in major markets)?

[Voyager]

What do these positions usually start at? Is there a top-market wage equivalent for a J.D. consulting position out of law school (e.g. 160k for BigLaw in major markets)?

See my post above. Base pay is much lower. Bonuses are much larger. Consulting firms seem to be in tiers as well with different levels of compensation. The "Big 3" are McKinsey, BCG and Bain. They pay the most and cover the most industries, geographies and functional areas.

[motiontodismiss]

The top market equivalent is 125+10 (McKinsey) to 140+40 (Accenture) for MBA new hires (a lot of firms in big consulting e.g. Deloitte and the like seem to fall in between). But only for starting. Obviously as the person upthread said it's +/- a few thousand depending on your background.

[Voyager]

The top market equivalent is 125+10 (McKinsey) to 140+40 (Accenture) for MBA new hires (a lot of firms in big consulting e.g. Deloitte and the like seem to fall in between). But only for starting. Obviously as the person upthread said it's +/- a few thousand depending on your background.

Those numbers are wrong and also miss a bunch of elements in the compensation package. McK total comp is much much higher than the number you are providing. And it is not +/- any money depending on your background... at least not at McK. Base pay is the same when you start. Bonuses will vary at the end of year 1 depending on performance.

[motiontodismiss]

The top market equivalent is 125+10 (McKinsey) to 140+40 (Accenture) for MBA new hires (a lot of firms in big consulting e.g. Deloitte and the like seem to fall in between). But only for starting. Obviously as the person upthread said it's +/- a few thousand depending on your background.

Those numbers are wrong and also miss a bunch of elements in the compensation package. McK total comp is much much higher than the number you are providing. And it is not +/- any money depending on your background... at least not at McK. Base pay is the same when you start. Bonuses will vary at the end of year 1 depending on performance.

Maybe the specific firm is wrong, but my numbers seem to be in the ballpark:
http://managementconsulted.com/consulti ... u-partner/

110+20+10 on the lower end and 140+40+20 on the upper end. Bonuses between 20 and 40.

[Voyager]

The top market equivalent is 125+10 (McKinsey) to 140+40 (Accenture) for MBA new hires (a lot of firms in big consulting e.g. Deloitte and the like seem to fall in between). But only for starting. Obviously as the person upthread said it's +/- a few thousand depending on your background.

Those numbers are wrong and also miss a bunch of elements in the compensation package. McK total comp is much much higher than the number you are providing. And it is not +/- any money depending on your background... at least not at McK. Base pay is the same when you start. Bonuses will vary at the end of year 1 depending on performance.

Maybe the specific firm is wrong, but my numbers seem to be in the ballpark:
http://managementconsulted.com/consulti ... u-partner/

110+20+10 on the lower end and 140+40+20 on the upper end. Bonuses between 20 and 40.

Your McK numbers specifically are wrong. That general page with the general numbers is correctly in the ballpark. MBB operates at the high end of that range. Also, background does not impact starting salary or your performance bonus.

If anyone would like to have me answer questions about being a consultant, I am happy to. Feel free to PM me as well.