Most difficult practice area? Forum

[Anonymous User]

How about capital markets work?

I don’t think so. General corp (capital markets, M&A, etc) is more about grinding and surviving the hours than anything super substantively difficult imo. There can be crazy complicated transactions, but even then you’re generally just leaning on your specialists to handle their aspects of the deal.

That's at junior level when you just do diligence, reach out to specialists, draft ancillary docs and turn comments. Corporate work can get quite complicated, but never too complicated.

[Joachim2017]

If some of the criteria for what constitutes "difficult" in this thread are accepted, then FIG and SEG work are right up there. FIG requires understanding complex statutes with lots of cross-references; as an earlier poster said about tax work, non-specialists in this area can barely read a sentence of the relevant statute and understand it.

For SEG work, at least at a few firms at the cutting edge, you need to be good with mathematical concepts, the economics of investment banking, and so on. Interestingly, at least in my experience, the folks in Big Law who really grasp this often become of counsel rather than partner.

[Anonymous User]

For SEG work, at least at a few firms at the cutting edge, you need to be good with mathematical concepts, the economics of investment banking, and so on. Interestingly, at least in my experience, the folks in Big Law who really grasp this often become of counsel rather than partner.

could you explain why this would be the case? a bit counterintuitive.

[motojir]

The practice area that pays the most, because that's how the world works. The harder something is the more it pays. So no it's not some benefits administrator making $70,000 to calculate your number, lol, and it's not the annoying tax guy. The volume of regulations in an area =/= how hard it is.

It's high-stakes litigation, and transactional servicing huge deals. Those are the areas where the partners make the most money and those are the hardest practice areas.

[2013]

The practice area that pays the most, because that's how the world works. The harder something is the more it pays. So no it's not some benefits administrator making $70,000 to calculate your number, lol, and it's not the annoying tax guy. The volume of regulations in an area =/= how hard it is.

It's high-stakes litigation, and transactional servicing huge deals. Those are the areas where the partners make the most money and those are the hardest practice areas.

This is a weird post. A lot of firms pay specialist partners with no book / low hours the same as M&A partners because they need their expertise for M&A. No V100 is paying an ERISA attorney $70,000.

[Joachim2017]

For SEG work, at least at a few firms at the cutting edge, you need to be good with mathematical concepts, the economics of investment banking, and so on. Interestingly, at least in my experience, the folks in Big Law who really grasp this often become of counsel rather than partner.

could you explain why this would be the case? a bit counterintuitive.

My hypothesis is that those folks who are most attuned to the intricacies in these more abstruse areas of law tend to be more intellectual / introverts / eggheads rather than the extroverts who pound the pavement schmoozing and networking and getting clients. It's the latter more so than the former that will make you partner in Big Law. At the firms with which I have experience, the guys who *really* knew the ins and outs of structured products and how bespoke differ from off-the-shelf tended to be a little more academicky. That's not always true, and I do know of partners in, e.g., SEG, who were masters at this, but there is a bit of a pattern to observe.

[Anonymous User]

How about project finance?

[motojir]

For SEG work, at least at a few firms at the cutting edge, you need to be good with mathematical concepts, the economics of investment banking, and so on. Interestingly, at least in my experience, the folks in Big Law who really grasp this often become of counsel rather than partner.

could you explain why this would be the case? a bit counterintuitive.

My hypothesis is that those folks who are most attuned to the intricacies in these more abstruse areas of law tend to be more intellectual / introverts / eggheads rather than the extroverts who pound the pavement schmoozing and networking and getting clients. It's the latter more so than the former that will make you partner in Big Law. At the firms with which I have experience, the guys who *really* knew the ins and outs of structured products and how bespoke differ from off-the-shelf tended to be a little more academicky. That's not always true, and I do know of partners in, e.g., SEG, who were masters at this, but there is a bit of a pattern to observe.

Top partners don't have to schmooze anyone. The work comes to them. A giant set of regulations doesn't make something hard. Have you ever seen the full service manual for a car? It's thousands of pages and very technical. Hard as hell, but mechanics don't make much. ERISA benefits people make solid wages, but nothing amazing. Same with most tax experts.

How do you get to be one of those top $10 million partners? I don't know, because it's hard.

[Anonymous User]

Tax

[2013]

I think you’re conflating money with complexity/difficulty. The richest attorneys seem to be top PI guys. That doesn’t make PI difficult.

The Code itself isn’t hard to read, but there are always moving parts that make it a difficult field. The same goes for other areas of law.

I don’t disagree that it is difficult to be an M&A partner making $10M, but I don’t think that has much to do with the practice area being difficult. I’ve met some rainmakers who weren’t very bright but were well connected and all of that (former colleague/best friend at the firm is now GC of huge company).

[motojir]

I think you’re conflating money with complexity/difficulty. The richest attorneys seem to be top PI guys. That doesn’t make PI difficult.

The Code itself isn’t hard to read, but there are always moving parts that make it a difficult field. The same goes for other areas of law.

I don’t disagree that it is difficult to be an M&A partner making $10M, but I don’t think that has much to do with the practice area being difficult. I’ve met some rainmakers who weren’t very bright but were well connected and all of that (former colleague/best friend at the firm is now GC of huge company).

I'd believe Mother Theresa if she said she turned down more money, even though she had the ability to make more without expending more effort. But I wouldn't believe a corporate lawyer who said that.

[Elston Gunn]

“The harder something is the more it pays” is one of the most bafflingly stupid statements I’ve ever heard in my life. It would be harder to dig a 10,000 foot hole by hand than to negotiate an M&A deal but weirdly it wouldn’t pay shit because no one values the service.

[Anon2468]

Tax practice focused on financial products or cross border transactions/restructuring (esp. spin-offs).

[NoLongerALurker]

How about capital markets work?

I can not imagine a less difficult practice area conceptually (once you get past the jargon) at a junior level, personally. It's difficult insofar as you have to manage firm politics and drinking from a firehose though.

[tlsguy2020]

The areas that pay the most are those that sit in the center or adjacent to large flows of cash. If a company is spending $10 billion to acquire another company, M&A lawyers will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. Similarly, if a company is paying a $10 billion settlement to consumers, a plaintiffs lawyer will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. I’m not sure what proximity to cash has to do with substantive difficulty.

[Anonymous User]

Cross border tax is insane.

[Sackboy]

The practice area that pays the most, because that's how the world works. The harder something is the more it pays.

Just want to echo what Elston said above: this is the "most bafflingly stupid statements I’ve ever heard in my life." As others have indicated here, there are PI folks making far more than even top M&A V10 partners, yet that work is notoriously pretty simple. Conversely, SCOTUS litigators wade in a notoriously intellectually-intensive practice but aren't very profitable for a biglaw firm (in relative terms). TLSguy2020 has posted what is probably TCR.

The areas that pay the most are those that sit in the center or adjacent to large flows of cash. If a company is spending $10 billion to acquire another company, M&A lawyers will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. Similarly, if a company is paying a $10 billion settlement to consumers, a plaintiffs lawyer will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. I’m not sure what proximity to cash has to do with substantive difficulty.

[motojir]

The practice area that pays the most, because that's how the world works. The harder something is the more it pays.

Just want to echo what Elston said above: this is the "most bafflingly stupid statements I’ve ever heard in my life." As others have indicated here, there are PI folks making far more than even top M&A V10 partners, yet that work is notoriously pretty simple. Conversely, SCOTUS litigators wade in a notoriously intellectually-intensive practice but aren't very profitable for a biglaw firm (in relative terms). TLSguy2020 has posted what is probably TCR.

The areas that pay the most are those that sit in the center or adjacent to large flows of cash. If a company is spending $10 billion to acquire another company, M&A lawyers will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. Similarly, if a company is paying a $10 billion settlement to consumers, a plaintiffs lawyer will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. I’m not sure what proximity to cash has to do with substantive difficulty.

Again, I'll believe Mother Theresa if she said she turned down more money, even though she had the ability to make more without expending more effort. But I won't believe a corporate lawyer who says that.

If $10 million PI was notoriously simple you would be doing it.

[motojir]

“The harder something is the more it pays” is one of the most bafflingly stupid statements I’ve ever heard in my life. It would be harder to dig a 10,000 foot hole by hand than to negotiate an M&A deal but weirdly it wouldn’t pay shit because no one values the service.

Digging a hole with my hands wouldn't be hard at all. If I could make $10 million a year doing that I'd quit my job right now. A 10,000 foot hole is impossible but set a possible benchmark and I'll do it. I'd have the most calloused thick skin but I'd do it. After a year or two I would retire and buy a lifetime supply of aloe.

Again, none of you would stay in your job if you could make materially more elsewhere with the same or less effort. You can't because it's hard. Harder = more money = harder.

[motojir]

The areas that pay the most are those that sit in the center or adjacent to large flows of cash. If a company is spending $10 billion to acquire another company, M&A lawyers will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. Similarly, if a company is paying a $10 billion settlement to consumers, a plaintiffs lawyer will collect rents as they do work necessary to transfer that $10 billion. I’m not sure what proximity to cash has to do with substantive difficulty.

Yes, but getting these jobs is hard. That's the point.

[Bosque]

“The harder something is the more it pays” is one of the most bafflingly stupid statements I’ve ever heard in my life. It would be harder to dig a 10,000 foot hole by hand than to negotiate an M&A deal but weirdly it wouldn’t pay shit because no one values the service.

Digging a hole with my hands wouldn't be hard at all. If I could make $10 million a year doing that I'd quit my job right now. A 10,000 foot hole is impossible but set a possible benchmark and I'll do it. I'd have the most calloused thick skin but I'd do it. After a year or two I would retire and buy a lifetime supply of aloe.

Again, none of you would stay in your job if you could make materially more elsewhere with the same or less effort. You can't because it's hard. Harder = more money = harder.

This is a dumb take that is not at all based in reality. But engaging (because hey, stupid hypotheticals are fun), you are redefining the market. 10,000 foot hole by hand, 10 Million dolars seems to be the comparison the poster you are replying to was setting. "Set[ing] a possible benchmark" means, in this hypothetical, a comiserate decrease in compensation. So, 1,000 foot hole by hand, $1 Million. 100 foot hole by hand, $100,000. 10 foot hole by hand, $10,000. That's actually not too far off from the real ammount it takes to pay someone to dig a pool, depending on the location. But no one makes $10 Million dollars doing it, because digging 10,000 feet by hand would kill you.

If you want to go out and dig pools for a living though, and are comfortable with this rate, what the heck is stopping you? Go do it if you think its an easier way to make your $$$.

[lolwutpar]

“The harder something is the more it pays” is one of the most bafflingly stupid statements I’ve ever heard in my life. It would be harder to dig a 10,000 foot hole by hand than to negotiate an M&A deal but weirdly it wouldn’t pay shit because no one values the service.

Digging a hole with my hands wouldn't be hard at all. If I could make $10 million a year doing that I'd quit my job right now. A 10,000 foot hole is impossible but set a possible benchmark and I'll do it. I'd have the most calloused thick skin but I'd do it. After a year or two I would retire and buy a lifetime supply of aloe.

Again, none of you would stay in your job if you could make materially more elsewhere with the same or less effort. You can't because it's hard. Harder = more money = harder.

This is a dumb take that is not at all based in reality. But engaging (because hey, stupid hypotheticals are fun), you are redefining the market. 10,000 foot hole by hand, 10 Million dolars seems to be the comparison the poster you are replying to was setting. "Set[ing] a possible benchmark" means, in this hypothetical, a comiserate decrease in compensation. So, 1,000 foot hole by hand, $1 Million. 100 foot hole by hand, $100,000. 10 foot hole by hand, $10,000. That's actually not too far off from the real ammount it takes to pay someone to dig a pool, depending on the location. But no one makes $10 Million dollars doing it, because digging 10,000 feet by hand would kill you.

If you want to go out and dig pools for a living though, and are comfortable with this rate, what the heck is stopping you? Go do it if you think its an easier way to make your $$$.

As someone putting in a pool right now, this hurts my soul.

[motojir]

As someone putting in a pool right now, this hurts my soul.

Someone spent their spring bonus before they got it.

[Sackboy]

If $10 million PI was notoriously simple you would be doing it.

You're such a lazy troll.

[2013]

If making money is the most important thing to even corporate attorneys, why aren’t partners all running to Kirkland, where they can get that guaranteed money?

Also, top tax partners make a ton of money. As much as you’d like to think corporate partners make many multiples more than non-corporate partners, that’s just not how it works. Those corporate rainmaking partners (unfortunately) NEED the specialists because of their niche expertise, which requires them to pay them more than they would otherwise get.