Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote:Is it acceptable to mention deals you've worked on by name on your resume (e.g., "Drafted merger agreement for AOL's $164 billion acquisition of Time Warner") or should you refer to the transactions generally and without specific references to the companies at play (e.g., "Drafted financial advisory firm's Fairness Opinion to a major pharmaceutical corporation as part of a $7.4 billion merger.")? Assuming the transactions at issue have gone public, of course.

Anonymous User wrote:Assuming the transactions at issue have gone public, is it acceptable to mention deals you've worked on by name on your resume (e.g., "Drafted merger agreement for AOL's $164 billion acquisition of Time Warner") or should you refer to the transactions generally and without specific references to the companies at play (e.g., "Drafted financial advisory firm's Fairness Opinion to a major pharmaceutical corporation as part of a $7.4 billion merger.")?

ggocat wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Assuming the transactions at issue have gone public, is it acceptable to mention deals you've worked on by name on your resume (e.g., "Drafted merger agreement for AOL's $164 billion acquisition of Time Warner") or should you refer to the transactions generally and without specific references to the companies at play (e.g., "Drafted financial advisory firm's Fairness Opinion to a major pharmaceutical corporation as part of a $7.4 billion merger.")?

I would use the general description or no description at all. I think using the client's name could raise eyebrows in a bad way even if the deal is public. It would cause me to question your judgment and confidentiality, unless I have reason to believe that you had informed consent from the client to reveal your representation (e.g., you are partner or associate at the firm in a position to have contact with client). If this is something you did as an SA, I would definitely not include the client name.

Unitas wrote: If your name is on the document this would likely change and putting the second one would be ok. Never mention client names-never. Look at firm websites and the achievements section. Most only say the industry and rarely say client names.

TooOld4This wrote:This thread is full of reasons law students should not give career advice when they are making things up.

Listing public deals is standard for resumes. Many transactional attorneys include "deal sheets" with their resumes.

If you have any question about the scope of what you can list, contact the person you worked on the deal with.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Unitas wrote: If your name is on the document this would likely change and putting the second one would be ok. Never mention client names-never. Look at firm websites and the achievements section. Most only say the industry and rarely say client names.

Actually, almost all announcements say not only the specific client, but list every lawyer who worked on the transaction including associates, and in some cases including summers.

Examples of literally every announced deal being attached to a client:
--LinkRemoved--
http://www.cgsh.com/experience/
http://www.davispolk.com/news/list.aspx ... 790286403e

Examples of firms listing summers:
http://www.cravath.com/Nalcos-Merger-Ag ... th-Ecolab/
http://www.stblaw.com/siteContent.cfm?c ... cusID=2204
http://www.stblaw.com/siteContent.cfm?c ... cusID=2237

Unitas wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong and do what you want. If you think a SA putting down he drafted a multi-billion dollar deal with a client name is a good idea then so be it.

joncrooshal wrote:Thinly veiled brag about being a big shot huge fucking rainmaker

TooOld4This wrote:This thread is full of reasons law students should not give career advice when they are making things up.

Listing public deals is standard for resumes. Many transactional attorneys include "deal sheets" with their resumes.

If you have any question about the scope of what you can list, contact the person you worked on the deal with.

Anonymous User wrote:Does anybody have an updated opinion on this?

Anonymous User wrote:Does anybody have an updated opinion on this? Can't get a definitive answer anywhere.

masque du pantsu wrote:In M&A at least it is totally normal to have a deal sheet post third-year or so. You can list names of parties to the extent they are already public and nobody will bat an eye or think negatively of your ability to handle confidentiality, etc. (i'm going to give those people above in the thread the benefit of the doubt and assume they're thinking from a litigation or other perspective).

What you can do for those that are not public is something general, like "Reprsented a private equity sponsor in connection with its bid to acquire a Peruvian mining operation (transaction abandoned)." or something along those lines.

Here's a good way to determine whether you need / should have one. After you list all your deals, add a parenthetical that describes in less than a sentence what exactly it is that you did, basically focusing on the MOST substantive thing you did. So, your first-year deals would be like "(reviewed documents and assisted with drafting due diligence memorandum)", and by the time you're like a ninth year it would be "(senior associate on transaction; primary drafter and negotiator of merger agreement)", etc.

if every single one would says things like "assisted with diligence report," then you DO NOT need a deal sheet and it would be silly to have one. It will look silly.

If you have some that say "assisted with diligence report," others that say "primary drafter of diligence report and primary drafter of [ancillary documents"], and others that say something like "managed diligence process and drafted diligence report; primary drafter and negotiator of ancillary documents including non-disclosure agreements; assisted with drafting merger agreement and voting agreement", then it is helpful to show your progression, career development, etc., but not strictly necessary probably.

Anything more senior than that, and at least in the M&A world in my view, people will expect to see one.