Best Private Equity Law Firm
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:04 pm
I only know of Simpson and Ropes. Anyone else?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=190828
While that is true about K&E dominating the middle market, it also has major clients, like Bain.Anonymous User wrote:STB and K&E. Other firms pretty distant.
STB has some major clients: Blackstone and KKR. K&E dominates the middle market.
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.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.
Except for every other firm that has a free-market system: GDC, Cahill, Dechert, etc.Anonymous User wrote: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.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.
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 wrote:I only know of Simpson and Ropes. Anyone else?
Right. A handful of firms, and not many others. Thanks for nit picking though! TLS is the best!keg411 wrote:Except for every other firm that has a free-market system: GDC, Cahill, Dechert, etc.Anonymous User wrote: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.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.
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.Anonymous User wrote:Right. A handful of firms, and not many others. Thanks for nit picking though! TLS is the best!keg411 wrote:Except for every other firm that has a free-market system: GDC, Cahill, Dechert, etc.Anonymous User wrote: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.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from a friend that the K&E assignment system "free-for-all" is actually quite stressful. Be warned.
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.quakeroats wrote: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?quakeroats wrote: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?
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.Anonymous User wrote: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?quakeroats wrote: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?
Worst idea ever.Anonymous User wrote: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?quakeroats wrote: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?
Working at a PE firm is? Or this convoluted route to working at a PE firm?bdubs wrote:Worst idea ever.Anonymous User wrote: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?quakeroats wrote: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?
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.Anonymous User wrote:Working at a PE firm is? Or this convoluted route to working at a PE firm?bdubs wrote:Worst idea ever.Anonymous User wrote: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?quakeroats wrote: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?
Not OP on the last quote. Just wanted to clarify.Anonymous User wrote:Working at a PE firm is? Or this convoluted route to working at a PE firm?bdubs wrote:Worst idea ever.Anonymous User wrote: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?quakeroats wrote: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?
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.$$$$$$ wrote:I think that moving into PE may be easier from a volume practice like Kirkland than a mainly high-stakes practice like Simpson. You'll work with a broader array of firms and at kirkland, I heard that as a junior associate you will work on smaller deals with one partner sometimes, which is great for client interaction. Ultimately, if you want to go PE, they are looking for people with banking experience, but if you have top PE experience and strong finance skills, many firms could see you as an asset. You never know, but if you were looking for ways out, id probably go kirkland.
Agreed on the K&E part (Chi). While I can't speak to Simpson, I summered at K&E and worked on a middle market deal. I had the client's GC and CFO routinely calling me after 2 weeks of working on the deal.$$$$$$ wrote: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.