How Many of You Are Planning to Quit After You Get This Bonus? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I got a job in house from litigation this year, and all I’ll add is it took a lot more than a few applications. Tons, lots of interviews, leading to just two offers.

Senior associate in commercial litigation. I started applying for in house jobs a few months ago. I've sent about 45 applications. No offers yet. I reached the final 4th round interview at a public tech company several weeks ago, but didn't get the job; trying to recover mentally.

Fellow commercial lit senior associate also applying. Have sent nearly 100 applications. Still no offers after making it to final rounds with a handful of orgs. 40% of apps = no response; 40% of apps = reject without interview; remaining 20% = rejections somewhere after second and final rounds (always make it past initial screener).

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

[Anonymous User]

I got a job in house from litigation this year, and all I’ll add is it took a lot more than a few applications. Tons, lots of interviews, leading to just two offers.

Senior associate in commercial litigation. I started applying for in house jobs a few months ago. I've sent about 45 applications. No offers yet. I reached the final 4th round interview at a public tech company several weeks ago, but didn't get the job; trying to recover mentally.

Fellow commercial lit senior associate also applying. Have sent nearly 100 applications. Still no offers after making it to final rounds with a handful of orgs. 40% of apps = no response; 40% of apps = reject without interview; remaining 20% = rejections somewhere after second and final rounds (always make it past initial screener).

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

100 app anon from before. The idea that I need to triple the amount of work this has been so far has me shook.

[Anonymous User]

I got a job in house from litigation this year, and all I’ll add is it took a lot more than a few applications. Tons, lots of interviews, leading to just two offers.

Senior associate in commercial litigation. I started applying for in house jobs a few months ago. I've sent about 45 applications. No offers yet. I reached the final 4th round interview at a public tech company several weeks ago, but didn't get the job; trying to recover mentally.

Fellow commercial lit senior associate also applying. Have sent nearly 100 applications. Still no offers after making it to final rounds with a handful of orgs. 40% of apps = no response; 40% of apps = reject without interview; remaining 20% = rejections somewhere after second and final rounds (always make it past initial screener).

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

100 app anon from before. The idea that I need to triple the amount of work this has been so far has me shook.

45 (now 46) app anon here wondering if I have the capacity to make a push for counsel/partner to increase my marketability. Probably not.

[Anonymous User]

I got a job in house from litigation this year, and all I’ll add is it took a lot more than a few applications. Tons, lots of interviews, leading to just two offers.

Senior associate in commercial litigation. I started applying for in house jobs a few months ago. I've sent about 45 applications. No offers yet. I reached the final 4th round interview at a public tech company several weeks ago, but didn't get the job; trying to recover mentally.

Fellow commercial lit senior associate also applying. Have sent nearly 100 applications. Still no offers after making it to final rounds with a handful of orgs. 40% of apps = no response; 40% of apps = reject without interview; remaining 20% = rejections somewhere after second and final rounds (always make it past initial screener).

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

100 app anon from before. The idea that I need to triple the amount of work this has been so far has me shook.

300 app anon here.

My two cents looking back on it: (i) find a hiring manager who used to be a litigator or is at least litigation-friendly and (ii) in order to find (i), talk to everyone you know who is in-house or knows an in-house lawyer. How I ultimately landed my single offer = guy I went to law school with knew someone who had previously worked in the state where the company was located. The second guy knew another guy who still practiced in the state, and the third guy knew someone who was partner at one of the big firms in town. The fourth guy (partner) knew someone who had just left the company, and the fifth guy (person who just left)'s boss was the hiring manager.

It was literally 6 degrees of separation over a span of a few months to make sure my resume got to the right person, and then several more months from initial screening to offer.

Silver lining: the hiring manager (who became my boss) told me years later that a main reason I got the job was that my resume had come in through multiple channels (formal online process and the internal contact), so that indicated I was very interested in them.

Happy to share more/commiserate. I totally hear you and can completely relate.

[Anonymous User]

I got a job in house from litigation this year, and all I’ll add is it took a lot more than a few applications. Tons, lots of interviews, leading to just two offers.

Senior associate in commercial litigation. I started applying for in house jobs a few months ago. I've sent about 45 applications. No offers yet. I reached the final 4th round interview at a public tech company several weeks ago, but didn't get the job; trying to recover mentally.

Fellow commercial lit senior associate also applying. Have sent nearly 100 applications. Still no offers after making it to final rounds with a handful of orgs. 40% of apps = no response; 40% of apps = reject without interview; remaining 20% = rejections somewhere after second and final rounds (always make it past initial screener).

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

100 app anon from before. The idea that I need to triple the amount of work this has been so far has me shook.

300 app anon here.

My two cents looking back on it: (i) find a hiring manager who used to be a litigator or is at least litigation-friendly and (ii) in order to find (i), talk to everyone you know who is in-house or knows an in-house lawyer. How I ultimately landed my single offer = guy I went to law school with knew someone who had previously worked in the state where the company was located. The second guy knew another guy who still practiced in the state, and the third guy knew someone who was partner at one of the big firms in town. The fourth guy (partner) knew someone who had just left the company, and the fifth guy (person who just left)'s boss was the hiring manager.

It was literally 6 degrees of separation over a span of a few months to make sure my resume got to the right person, and then several more months from initial screening to offer.

Silver lining: the hiring manager (who became my boss) told me years later that a main reason I got the job was that my resume had come in through multiple channels (formal online process and the internal contact), so that indicated I was very interested in them.

Happy to share more/commiserate. I totally hear you and can completely relate.

46 app anon. Good insight. Thanks for sharing. My 46 in house apps were almost all litigation-focused positions (i.e., "litigation counsel"), so all of the hiring managers I spoke to were litigators with current titles like "lead litigation counsel."

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate in commercial litigation. I started applying for in house jobs a few months ago. I've sent about 45 applications. No offers yet. I reached the final 4th round interview at a public tech company several weeks ago, but didn't get the job; trying to recover mentally.

Fellow commercial lit senior associate also applying. Have sent nearly 100 applications. Still no offers after making it to final rounds with a handful of orgs. 40% of apps = no response; 40% of apps = reject without interview; remaining 20% = rejections somewhere after second and final rounds (always make it past initial screener).

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

100 app anon from before. The idea that I need to triple the amount of work this has been so far has me shook.

300 app anon here.

My two cents looking back on it: (i) find a hiring manager who used to be a litigator or is at least litigation-friendly and (ii) in order to find (i), talk to everyone you know who is in-house or knows an in-house lawyer. How I ultimately landed my single offer = guy I went to law school with knew someone who had previously worked in the state where the company was located. The second guy knew another guy who still practiced in the state, and the third guy knew someone who was partner at one of the big firms in town. The fourth guy (partner) knew someone who had just left the company, and the fifth guy (person who just left)'s boss was the hiring manager.

It was literally 6 degrees of separation over a span of a few months to make sure my resume got to the right person, and then several more months from initial screening to offer.

Silver lining: the hiring manager (who became my boss) told me years later that a main reason I got the job was that my resume had come in through multiple channels (formal online process and the internal contact), so that indicated I was very interested in them.

Happy to share more/commiserate. I totally hear you and can completely relate.

46 app anon. Good insight. Thanks for sharing. My 46 in house apps were almost all litigation-focused positions (i.e., "litigation counsel"), so all of the hiring managers I spoke to were litigators with current titles like "lead litigation counsel."

46 app anon,

300 app anon here. It's good that you're focusing on lit positions -- one tip based on what I've seen regarding in-house hiring for litigation jobs: you may be competing with a lot of BigLaw junior partners who want to move in-house. Find reasons why you're more suitable for the position than partners, etc. Ironically, I ended up in a non-litigation role as my initial in-house position, and then a few months later, was asked if I wanted to join the litigation group.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow commercial lit senior associate also applying. Have sent nearly 100 applications. Still no offers after making it to final rounds with a handful of orgs. 40% of apps = no response; 40% of apps = reject without interview; remaining 20% = rejections somewhere after second and final rounds (always make it past initial screener).

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

100 app anon from before. The idea that I need to triple the amount of work this has been so far has me shook.

300 app anon here.

My two cents looking back on it: (i) find a hiring manager who used to be a litigator or is at least litigation-friendly and (ii) in order to find (i), talk to everyone you know who is in-house or knows an in-house lawyer. How I ultimately landed my single offer = guy I went to law school with knew someone who had previously worked in the state where the company was located. The second guy knew another guy who still practiced in the state, and the third guy knew someone who was partner at one of the big firms in town. The fourth guy (partner) knew someone who had just left the company, and the fifth guy (person who just left)'s boss was the hiring manager.

It was literally 6 degrees of separation over a span of a few months to make sure my resume got to the right person, and then several more months from initial screening to offer.

Silver lining: the hiring manager (who became my boss) told me years later that a main reason I got the job was that my resume had come in through multiple channels (formal online process and the internal contact), so that indicated I was very interested in them.

Happy to share more/commiserate. I totally hear you and can completely relate.

46 app anon. Good insight. Thanks for sharing. My 46 in house apps were almost all litigation-focused positions (i.e., "litigation counsel"), so all of the hiring managers I spoke to were litigators with current titles like "lead litigation counsel."

46 app anon,

300 app anon here. It's good that you're focusing on lit positions -- one tip based on what I've seen regarding in-house hiring for litigation jobs: you may be competing with a lot of BigLaw junior partners who want to move in-house. Find reasons why you're more suitable for the position than partners, etc. Ironically, I ended up in a non-litigation role as my initial in-house position, and then a few months later, was asked if I wanted to join the litigation group.

46 app anon. Credentials/firm prestige and substantive experience aside, I'm not sure there are any valid reasons for an organization to prefer a senior associate over a junior partner. I will, however, consider non-litigation roles. They just seem even more out-of-reach than the litigation-focused ones.

[Anonymous User]

It's f****** brutal out there unless you're trying to go to firms

Left BigLaw as a mid-level litigator several years before Covid. It took me close to 300 in-house applications to get a single offer. Friends don't let friends go to BigLaw to do litigation if they want to move in-house. And, yes, all it takes is one. But man, it SUCKED until I got that offer.

100 app anon from before. The idea that I need to triple the amount of work this has been so far has me shook.

300 app anon here.

My two cents looking back on it: (i) find a hiring manager who used to be a litigator or is at least litigation-friendly and (ii) in order to find (i), talk to everyone you know who is in-house or knows an in-house lawyer. How I ultimately landed my single offer = guy I went to law school with knew someone who had previously worked in the state where the company was located. The second guy knew another guy who still practiced in the state, and the third guy knew someone who was partner at one of the big firms in town. The fourth guy (partner) knew someone who had just left the company, and the fifth guy (person who just left)'s boss was the hiring manager.

It was literally 6 degrees of separation over a span of a few months to make sure my resume got to the right person, and then several more months from initial screening to offer.

Silver lining: the hiring manager (who became my boss) told me years later that a main reason I got the job was that my resume had come in through multiple channels (formal online process and the internal contact), so that indicated I was very interested in them.

Happy to share more/commiserate. I totally hear you and can completely relate.

46 app anon. Good insight. Thanks for sharing. My 46 in house apps were almost all litigation-focused positions (i.e., "litigation counsel"), so all of the hiring managers I spoke to were litigators with current titles like "lead litigation counsel."

46 app anon,

300 app anon here. It's good that you're focusing on lit positions -- one tip based on what I've seen regarding in-house hiring for litigation jobs: you may be competing with a lot of BigLaw junior partners who want to move in-house. Find reasons why you're more suitable for the position than partners, etc. Ironically, I ended up in a non-litigation role as my initial in-house position, and then a few months later, was asked if I wanted to join the litigation group.

46 app anon. Credentials/firm prestige and substantive experience aside, I'm not sure there are any valid reasons for an organization to prefer a senior associate over a junior partner. I will, however, consider non-litigation roles. They just seem even more out-of-reach than the litigation-focused ones.

300 app anon. For the non-lit roles, if you have any corporate/transactional experience, I'd definitely highlight that so you come across as more well-rounded. Ultimately, in-house roles are typically generalist-focused except for patents/IP (& that's what I try to glean when I interview people), so that's the strategy I'd recommend if you go for non-lit roles.

For lit roles, I've generally seen them go to partners or folks with gov't experience. The one exception: our former lead lit counsel was the go-to senior associate for the company when he was at the firm. So he knew the folks who ultimately made the decision to hire him. If you have any sort of connection to the companies you're applying to, I would definitely work that angle as much as you can.

[Anonymous User]

300 app anon. For the non-lit roles, if you have any corporate/transactional experience, I'd definitely highlight that so you come across as more well-rounded. Ultimately, in-house roles are typically generalist-focused except for patents/IP (& that's what I try to glean when I interview people), so that's the strategy I'd recommend if you go for non-lit roles.

For lit roles, I've generally seen them go to partners or folks with gov't experience. The one exception: our former lead lit counsel was the go-to senior associate for the company when he was at the firm. So he knew the folks who ultimately made the decision to hire him. If you have any sort of connection to the companies you're applying to, I would definitely work that angle as much as you can.

Thank you both for sharing your insight. I'm a civil lit associate (with a specialty) and just submitted my first in-house lit application (same specialty), but this is sobering stuff.

For the 300-app anon who's currently in-house, have you found it was worth it? i.e. does the reduction in pay come with a similar reduction in hours/stress?

I feel like corporate associates are billing 24/7 sometimes, especially nowadays, so any in-house job is worth it, but even with the lighter workload of civil lit I'm starting to feel burned out after a couple years of constant 170-200 hour months with no vacations or breaks.

[Anonymous User]

300 app anon. For the non-lit roles, if you have any corporate/transactional experience, I'd definitely highlight that so you come across as more well-rounded. Ultimately, in-house roles are typically generalist-focused except for patents/IP (& that's what I try to glean when I interview people), so that's the strategy I'd recommend if you go for non-lit roles.

For lit roles, I've generally seen them go to partners or folks with gov't experience. The one exception: our former lead lit counsel was the go-to senior associate for the company when he was at the firm. So he knew the folks who ultimately made the decision to hire him. If you have any sort of connection to the companies you're applying to, I would definitely work that angle as much as you can.

Thank you both for sharing your insight. I'm a civil lit associate (with a specialty) and just submitted my first in-house lit application (same specialty), but this is sobering stuff.

For the 300-app anon who's currently in-house, have you found it was worth it? i.e. does the reduction in pay come with a similar reduction in hours/stress?

I feel like corporate associates are billing 24/7 sometimes, especially nowadays, so any in-house job is worth it, but even with the lighter workload of civil lit I'm starting to feel burned out after a couple years of constant 170-200 hour months with no vacations or breaks.

300 app anon here. To the specialized civil lit associate: YES. In-house is worth it multiple times over. Most of the time, it's a 9-5 job with no weekend emails.

People in my BigLaw class made partner this year, and I'll never make as much as them. I was chatting with a friend who's a senior associate at the firm. He's stressed about the quality & quantity of hours (meaning as the senior associate on the lit case, he's the one training juniors, reviewing their work, making sure the partner is happy, and making sure his own work product is perfect). In other words, the job would be easy if he could be the junior associate and simply do doc review/write briefs that someone more senior would review. All that said, he is making more than I make.

Since you're specialized, if you have any transactional/corporate experience in your specialty area, definitely highlight that in your resume. Ex: you do IP litigation and have done due diligence on some deals or reviewed license agreements, TALK THAT STUFF UP.

[Anonymous User]

Checking in.

Accepted an offer today and will be putting in my notice the Friday after bonuses are paid. 6th/now 7th year in a major market doing M&A at a v10. Tired of the year end push every single year that takes all the joy out of the holidays.

Pay cut will be real next year, but realized on the day one of the special bonuses were paid this year that I didn't care about the money, I am just over this job / the biglaw model in general. This is jumping into the void for me, and I am going to a kind of hybrid M&A / financial services firm that covers a sector I had not thought of at all until ~3 months ago when a recruiter reached out. We will see how it goes, and I figure my worst case is I end up back at a firm in 2-3 years if it doesn't work out.

I feel for all of the lit annons above. I hope things work out for you all and you end up happy and fulfilled somewhere. I feel like this opportunity kind of fell into my lap, so keep faith. Feels odd to be excited about something work related after a half decade plus of numb indifference punctuated by stark loathing.

[Anonymous User]

What about transactional folks not in the hot areas like M&A? How's the in house hunting going?

I'm a junior in levfin, trying to get a sense of what the future holds.

[Anonymous User]

What about transactional folks not in the hot areas like M&A? How's the in house hunting going?

I'm a junior in levfin, trying to get a sense of what the future holds.

I'm an M&A 4th year who accepted an offer over a month ago, but negotiated not giving notice until EOY bonuses were paid (it's awful trying to do the job when you know you're just waiting out the clock) - does anyone have any evidence that more people really are quitting than is typical? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, and all the discussion is about how burned out everyone is, but I also wonder if it's really just the same number of people who always quit, it just feels like more because there are so many deals that need bodies, which makes quitters just more noticeable.

[Anonymous User]

What about transactional folks not in the hot areas like M&A? How's the in house hunting going?

I'm a junior in levfin, trying to get a sense of what the future holds.

I'm an M&A 4th year who accepted an offer over a month ago, but negotiated not giving notice until EOY bonuses were paid (it's awful trying to do the job when you know you're just waiting out the clock) - does anyone have any evidence that more people really are quitting than is typical? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, and all the discussion is about how burned out everyone is, but I also wonder if it's really just the same number of people who always quit, it just feels like more because there are so many deals that need bodies, which makes quitters just more noticeable.

v 10 M&A annon from above.

I think the overall number will be higher year-on-year than 2020-2021, but that was because very few people left during COVID and there was almost no in-house hiring for ~18 months. I think this year will be a market correction and the overall volume of resignations will be higher, but it is really 2+ years of people leaving in a relatively short period.

For me, I have been casually looking for 2+ years, and happened to get a cold call about the job I am taking and it sounded interesting and new so I pursued it. I know several other mid and senior levels seriously looking/interviewing/hoping to leave in early 2022 as well, so I am not sure how some parts of our office will hold up short term. We also lost an outsized number of 1-2nd years in the last 12 months due to return to office policy (which, ironically, has not been implemented due to the new COVID strains) so the 2-3rd year ranks are super thin to the point I have heard stories about 1st years having to essentially run major public offerings - which is utter nonsense IMO.

Can't say for sure, and this may well be a small blip in the overall scheme, but I think there may be some actual shift in biglaw culture/expectations in the coming years (already starting maybe with the billable time off, etc. that I think will become standard by next year). For myself and several people I am close to at work, giving us more money we don't get to enjoy, or need to pay for someone else to raise our family, isn't the carrot that will keep us around.

[Anonymous User]

300 app anon. For the non-lit roles, if you have any corporate/transactional experience, I'd definitely highlight that so you come across as more well-rounded. Ultimately, in-house roles are typically generalist-focused except for patents/IP (& that's what I try to glean when I interview people), so that's the strategy I'd recommend if you go for non-lit roles.

For lit roles, I've generally seen them go to partners or folks with gov't experience. The one exception: our former lead lit counsel was the go-to senior associate for the company when he was at the firm. So he knew the folks who ultimately made the decision to hire him. If you have any sort of connection to the companies you're applying to, I would definitely work that angle as much as you can.

Thank you both for sharing your insight. I'm a civil lit associate (with a specialty) and just submitted my first in-house lit application (same specialty), but this is sobering stuff.

For the 300-app anon who's currently in-house, have you found it was worth it? i.e. does the reduction in pay come with a similar reduction in hours/stress?

I feel like corporate associates are billing 24/7 sometimes, especially nowadays, so any in-house job is worth it, but even with the lighter workload of civil lit I'm starting to feel burned out after a couple years of constant 170-200 hour months with no vacations or breaks.

300 app anon here. To the specialized civil lit associate: YES. In-house is worth it multiple times over. Most of the time, it's a 9-5 job with no weekend emails.

People in my BigLaw class made partner this year, and I'll never make as much as them. I was chatting with a friend who's a senior associate at the firm. He's stressed about the quality & quantity of hours (meaning as the senior associate on the lit case, he's the one training juniors, reviewing their work, making sure the partner is happy, and making sure his own work product is perfect). In other words, the job would be easy if he could be the junior associate and simply do doc review/write briefs that someone more senior would review. All that said, he is making more than I make.

Since you're specialized, if you have any transactional/corporate experience in your specialty area, definitely highlight that in your resume. Ex: you do IP litigation and have done due diligence on some deals or reviewed license agreements, TALK THAT STUFF UP.

Specialized lit associate here. Thanks for the advice and the good word - my specialty is even more niche than something like IP, but I've done plenty of "business advising" for clients and am not pure lit, so will definitely talk that up! I'm 100% happy to take a serious pay cut if it means a mostly 9-5, rarely working weekends, and a proper vacation from time to time. I guess some of that will depend on how honest the companies I apply to are about work-life balance...

And your description of the senior associate life is exactly what I'm going through. Life was simple as a junior associate, but now that I have like, actual responsibilities across five different cases and the stakes are higher (and would only be higher if I somehow make partner), I'm starting to think this isn't for me in the long run.

[Anonymous User]

What about transactional folks not in the hot areas like M&A? How's the in house hunting going?

I'm a junior in levfin, trying to get a sense of what the future holds.

I'm an M&A 4th year who accepted an offer over a month ago, but negotiated not giving notice until EOY bonuses were paid (it's awful trying to do the job when you know you're just waiting out the clock) - does anyone have any evidence that more people really are quitting than is typical? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, and all the discussion is about how burned out everyone is, but I also wonder if it's really just the same number of people who always quit, it just feels like more because there are so many deals that need bodies, which makes quitters just more noticeable.

We also lost an outsized number of 1-2nd years in the last 12 months due to return to office policy (which, ironically, has not been implemented due to the new COVID strains) so the 2-3rd year ranks are super thin to the point I have heard stories about 1st years having to essentially run major public offerings - which is utter nonsense IMO.

Different Anon. I'm a 2nd year and many of us have definitely been running deals, whether people can believe it or not. I have been on and across from teams where M&A deals are basically being run by a 1st or 2nd year. In some cases there was a midlevel or senior on the deal at one point, but they left and nobody ever tried to replace them, probably because the firm literally doesn't have the bodies. I am on a decent-sized pubco deal right now where the corp team is just me and a partner. It is incredibly unfair to ask/expect this of people.

I've been putting together a deal sheet for lateral/in-house applications, and I think there will be people who look at my application and think I'm flat out lying. Based on the in-house postings I look at, I think there are people in-house who think juniors still just do diligence for the first 2-3 years. I feel like my class is burning out way quicker than previous classes, but we definitely don't have as many options yet if we want to leave.

[Anonymous User]

What about transactional folks not in the hot areas like M&A? How's the in house hunting going?

I'm a junior in levfin, trying to get a sense of what the future holds.

I'm an M&A 4th year who accepted an offer over a month ago, but negotiated not giving notice until EOY bonuses were paid (it's awful trying to do the job when you know you're just waiting out the clock) - does anyone have any evidence that more people really are quitting than is typical? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, and all the discussion is about how burned out everyone is, but I also wonder if it's really just the same number of people who always quit, it just feels like more because there are so many deals that need bodies, which makes quitters just more noticeable.

We also lost an outsized number of 1-2nd years in the last 12 months due to return to office policy (which, ironically, has not been implemented due to the new COVID strains) so the 2-3rd year ranks are super thin to the point I have heard stories about 1st years having to essentially run major public offerings - which is utter nonsense IMO.

Different Anon. I'm a 2nd year and many of us have definitely been running deals, whether people can believe it or not. I have been on and across from teams where M&A deals are basically being run by a 1st or 2nd year. In some cases there was a midlevel or senior on the deal at one point, but they left and nobody ever tried to replace them, probably because the firm literally doesn't have the bodies. I am on a decent-sized pubco deal right now where the corp team is just me and a partner. It is incredibly unfair to ask/expect this of people.

I've been putting together a deal sheet for lateral/in-house applications, and I think there will be people who look at my application and think I'm flat out lying. Based on the in-house postings I look at, I think there are people in-house who think juniors still just do diligence for the first 2-3 years. I feel like my class is burning out way quicker than previous classes, but we definitely don't have as many options yet if we want to leave.

Annon you quoted. I believe you and have heard similar things for sure. I can imagine it is burning people out quickly because there is nothing worse than not knowing what to do but still being expected to get something done. Recently was talking to someone who is wrapping up their first year and they were the most senior associate on an IPO recently for several weeks after the midlevel quit and there was no backfill. Even just a 4th year and a 1st year on an IPO is borderline insane and leaving it to a 1st year is unconscionable.

Its not just unfair, I would argue it is borderline malpractice by the Partners allowing it to happen unless they are very involved and reviewing most/all of the substantive work. The best second year is not going to know enough to effectively negotiate a full purchase agreement / navigate all of the issues. Hell, as a 6th/7th year I still need to ask plenty of questions, some of which I would have not event known to ask 3-4 years ago. It's not a knock on the associates at all, but the absolute stupid management that has gotten us to this point.

[Anonymous User]

After giving notice, is there any obligation to actually do anything? So checked out and really don’t feel like doing a thing.

[Anonymous User]

After giving notice, is there any obligation to actually do anything? So checked out and really don’t feel like doing a thing.

I'm the 4th year M&A from above. I've seen it go many different ways. I've seen the firm demand all-nighters because a deal is live and signing/closing soon and the departing associate is afraid of burning bridges or still psychologically unable to say no and just complies, even thought they're in their notice period. I've also seen a gradual disengagement, where the departing associate is responsive to e-mails asking for information and participation that really that specific associate is much better positioned to help with, so the departing associate is basically just doing the minimum to not be a jerk and stick it to their colleagues. In one notable case, though, in the one-on-one where an associate gave notice to her primary partner, the partner was super peeved because she was going to a strong competitor team and the partner called her foolish and disloyal, so she told him what she thought of him, which wasn't well received, and she didn't set foot in the office again. Basically a hero.

[Sackboy]

When I gave notice at my last firm, they basically acted like I was dead to them. Essentially got a paid vacation without any vacation days used. On top of that, I got all my accrued PTO. It was a nice way to net a month's salary for 0 weeks worth of work. If your firm isn't asking much of you, don't do much.

[Anonymous User]

Most firms once you give notice a meeting occurs shifting all your work to other team members (with your participation or not) and you eventually just wean out of responsibilities (if you even care). In the last two years it's wild, associates usually just stop responding.

[Dcc617]

After giving notice, is there any obligation to actually do anything? So checked out and really don’t feel like doing a thing.

I'm the 4th year M&A from above. I've seen it go many different ways. I've seen the firm demand all-nighters because a deal is live and signing/closing soon and the departing associate is afraid of burning bridges or still psychologically unable to say no and just complies, even thought they're in their notice period. I've also seen a gradual disengagement, where the departing associate is responsive to e-mails asking for information and participation that really that specific associate is much better positioned to help with, so the departing associate is basically just doing the minimum to not be a jerk and stick it to their colleagues. In one notable case, though, in the one-on-one where an associate gave notice to her primary partner, the partner was super peeved because she was going to a strong competitor team and the partner called her foolish and disloyal, so she told him what she thought of him, which wasn't well received, and she didn't set foot in the office again. Basically a hero.

When I quit most people were like, please help transition when you feel like it, please. One dude was like, no need to transition we’ll just crank through this checklist in the next two weeks. I started waiting a full business day to respond to his emails and he quickly got it and left me alone.

People are quitting. Obviously don’t be a total prick but the firm will go on without you, please people don’t pull all nighters after you give notice.

[Anonymous User]

What’s the usual range of notice periods? I assume two weeks is both acceptable and also on the shorter end? How long can folks stretch this out?

[Anonymous User]

What’s the usual range of notice periods? I assume two weeks is both acceptable and also on the shorter end? How long can folks stretch this out?

Just be normal and give two weeks notice and work like a normal associate until you have about 3 days left, at which point you start saying your goodbyes and cleaning out your office. Don't be the junior or mid-level associate that gives notice and checks out on the senior associate leaving them completely effed for two weeks. Having been the senior in this situation, nothing is more inconsiderate and unprofessional.

Also- to the point of the thread... I'm a senior associate that was planning to stay if retention bonuses were announced alongside annual bonuses. Now, I'm not so sure. It might depend on how the new COVID outbreak impacts RTO -- I don't ever want to return and sit in an office more than one day a week and will start searching for fully remote as soon as that happens.

[Anonymous User]

I’m leaving at the end of January. Haven’t returned to my office since March 2020. And am really ambivalent about going to grab a few random things/nothing of value left there.

How have people been dealing with “clearing their office” during the pandemic?