Best Private Equity Law Firm Forum

[Anonymous User]

I only know of Simpson and Ropes. Anyone else?

[Anonymous User]

The reason I asked was because I saw vault ranking and private equity analyst ranking are very different.

[Anonymous User]

In the Bay Area, Kirkland seems to be king, but you have to be willing to get pushed to the max. Big bonuses, long hours, and lots of associate departures.

[Anonymous User]

Debevoise in NY?

[bdubs]

Pretty sure K&E is the top firm for overall volume of PE work. Simpson's deals tend to be larger on average than the deals K&E does though, not that it necessarily matters.

Also, see Chambers ratings:
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/71031

[Anonymous User]

STB and K&E. Other firms pretty distant.


STB has some major clients: Blackstone and KKR. K&E dominates the middle market.

[Anonymous User]

STB and K&E. Other firms pretty distant.


STB has some major clients: Blackstone and KKR. K&E dominates the middle market.

While that is true about K&E dominating the middle market, it also has major clients, like Bain.

[Anonymous User]

I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.

[Anonymous User]

Vinson & Elkins in NY does a ton of huge PE deals

[Anonymous User]

I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.

Glad you're passing along incorrect secondhand information. It's a "free market" system, not "free-for-all." You choose your deals based on who you want to work for (partners and clients). K&E has so much work, you don't need to worry where your assignments are coming from. If you're worried about the "free market," as in, "I'm not social enough to talk to someone and ask them for work if things ever slow down," well then you may have a hard time. Otherwise, having the ability to effectively mold your development as an attorney by hand picking your mentors and the type of deals you work on, is a pretty solid system. Not sure I've heard of many other firms where associates can turn down partners looking to staff assignments and that decision is entirely respected.

[keg411]

I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.

Glad you're passing along incorrect secondhand information. It's a "free market" system, not "free-for-all." You choose your deals based on who you want to work for (partners and clients). K&E has so much work, you don't need to worry where your assignments are coming from. If you're worried about the "free market," as in, "I'm not social enough to talk to someone and ask them for work if things ever slow down," well then you may have a hard time. Otherwise, having the ability to effectively mold your development as an attorney by hand picking your mentors and the type of deals you work on, is a pretty solid system. Not sure I've heard of many other firms where associates can turn down partners looking to staff assignments and that decision is entirely respected.

Except for every other firm that has a free-market system: GDC, Cahill, Dechert, etc.

[itbdvorm]

I only know of Simpson and Ropes. Anyone else?

Chambers is a pretty good assessment. Simpson, Latham and Cleary/Ropes are the guys you'll see on the big-ticket PE deals. K&E does more volume but generally smaller deals, Debevoise has a similar practice.

[Anonymous User]

I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.

Glad you're passing along incorrect secondhand information. It's a "free market" system, not "free-for-all." You choose your deals based on who you want to work for (partners and clients). K&E has so much work, you don't need to worry where your assignments are coming from. If you're worried about the "free market," as in, "I'm not social enough to talk to someone and ask them for work if things ever slow down," well then you may have a hard time. Otherwise, having the ability to effectively mold your development as an attorney by hand picking your mentors and the type of deals you work on, is a pretty solid system. Not sure I've heard of many other firms where associates can turn down partners looking to staff assignments and that decision is entirely respected.

Except for every other firm that has a free-market system: GDC, Cahill, Dechert, etc.

Right. A handful of firms, and not many others. Thanks for nit picking though! TLS is the best!

[Anonymous User]

I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.

Glad you're passing along incorrect secondhand information. It's a "free market" system, not "free-for-all." You choose your deals based on who you want to work for (partners and clients). K&E has so much work, you don't need to worry where your assignments are coming from. If you're worried about the "free market," as in, "I'm not social enough to talk to someone and ask them for work if things ever slow down," well then you may have a hard time. Otherwise, having the ability to effectively mold your development as an attorney by hand picking your mentors and the type of deals you work on, is a pretty solid system. Not sure I've heard of many other firms where associates can turn down partners looking to staff assignments and that decision is entirely respected.

Except for every other firm that has a free-market system: GDC, Cahill, Dechert, etc.

Right. A handful of firms, and not many others. Thanks for nit picking though! TLS is the best!

It's helpful to list the free-market firms... I picked one of the above firms for this reason, and just finished summering there. I don't think enough people (and conventional TLS wisdom) realize the upsides of a free market system. Avoiding partners who do work that doesn't interest you, and picking those who do, is massively beneficial for career development and for avoiding getting "stuck," so to speak, on certain cases that don't interest you. Of course, it's not for everybody - particularly, it's not for shy people who aren't self-starters - but if that isn't you, it can be a very helpful system.

[quakeroats]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private Equity Law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

[DrGuano]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private equity law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

Right, but firms that work in "PE Law," tend to do these things - M&A, bond offerings, debt financing, and fund formation/maintenance. Any other practice group - tax, litigation, or labor law would likely only work on PE matters as they relate to transactional work.

[Anonymous User]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private equity law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

Career exit. Had a very strong quantitative background, just using law to get to private equity firms. So do you have any advice who should be on the top of my list?

[gyarados]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private equity law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

Career exit. Had a very strong quantitative background, just using law to get to private equity firms. So do you have any advice who should be on the top of my list?

Obvious route for you is to figure out which firms handle the business of the PE firms you would want to end up at. Also look at the websites of those PE firms to figure out which ones take laterals and where the laterals come from.

[bdubs]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private equity law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

Career exit. Had a very strong quantitative background, just using law to get to private equity firms. So do you have any advice who should be on the top of my list?

Worst idea ever.

[Anonymous User]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private equity law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

Career exit. Had a very strong quantitative background, just using law to get to private equity firms. So do you have any advice who should be on the top of my list?

Worst idea ever.

Working at a PE firm is? Or this convoluted route to working at a PE firm?

[Anonymous User]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private equity law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

Career exit. Had a very strong quantitative background, just using law to get to private equity firms. So do you have any advice who should be on the top of my list?

Worst idea ever.

Working at a PE firm is? Or this convoluted route to working at a PE firm?

Your convoluted route to working at a PE firm. It is extremely unlikely to work out. I assume you want to work in a finance role and not a legal one, but frankly either one is not likely to happen.

Do things the normal way. Find a way to go do banking for a few years and try to transition after you've got some experience. Also unlikely, but not batshit crazy like your current plan.

[$$$$$$]

I think that moving into PE may be easier from a volume practice like Kirkland than a mainly high-stakes practice like Simpson. You'll work with a broader array of firms and at kirkland, I heard that as a junior associate you will work on smaller deals with one partner sometimes, which is great for client interaction. Ultimately, if you want to go PE, they are looking for people with banking experience, but if you have top PE experience and strong finance skills, many firms could see you as an asset. You never know, but if you were looking for ways out, id probably go kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

A few questions you should answer for yourself before going any further:

What about "private equity law" interests you? Btw, even saying PE law doesn't relate much. It's a bit like saying you're interested in capital markets law (i.e., the capital markets are so varied and complex that people specialize in different products/clients quite different from one to the next). Why are you considering private equity over, say, VC, hedge fund or registered fund work? What kind of work do you generally want to spend your time on: fund formations, M&A, regulatory work, tax, litigation, etc.? Would you prefer to represent the bigger, typically U.S. firms, or not? Have you been watching the difficulties major players have faced over the past 5-10 years? Are you looking to make a career out of this or are exit options what's most important?

Career exit. Had a very strong quantitative background, just using law to get to private equity firms. So do you have any advice who should be on the top of my list?

Worst idea ever.

Working at a PE firm is? Or this convoluted route to working at a PE firm?

Not OP on the last quote. Just wanted to clarify.

[Anonymous User]

I think that moving into PE may be easier from a volume practice like Kirkland than a mainly high-stakes practice like Simpson. You'll work with a broader array of firms and at kirkland, I heard that as a junior associate you will work on smaller deals with one partner sometimes, which is great for client interaction. Ultimately, if you want to go PE, they are looking for people with banking experience, but if you have top PE experience and strong finance skills, many firms could see you as an asset. You never know, but if you were looking for ways out, id probably go kirkland.

Personally, I'd think the opposite. A gigantic PE firm like Blackstone or KKR is more likely to take someone in-house than a smaller shop, and then from in-house you would work your way into the finance side. And the big PE firms are all STB clients.

[Anonymous User]

I think that moving into PE may be easier from a volume practice like Kirkland than a mainly high-stakes practice like Simpson. You'll work with a broader array of firms and at kirkland, I heard that as a junior associate you will work on smaller deals with one partner sometimes, which is great for client interaction. Ultimately, if you want to go PE, they are looking for people with banking experience, but if you have top PE experience and strong finance skills, many firms could see you as an asset. You never know, but if you were looking for ways out, id probably go kirkland.

Agreed on the K&E part (Chi). While I can't speak to Simpson, I summered at K&E and worked on a middle market deal. I had the client's GC and CFO routinely calling me after 2 weeks of working on the deal.

Also, I worked with a third year associate who ran the deal and was negotiating with a senior partner at Weil, who represented the seller. There was a partner overseeing it all on our side, but I was doing the same work (drafting equity docs, funds flow, etc.) as the 6th year at Weil. Pretty invaluable to get that experience as a summer.