Best V10 practice areas/groups for shot at FINANCE exit ops? Forum

[Anonymous User]

What gives you a better chance at moving into a bank as an associate - K&E/Weil/Skadden Restructuring or non-Wachtell V10 M&A?

[dingbat]

What gives you a better chance at moving into a bank as an associate - K&E/Weil/Skadden Restructuring or non-Wachtell V10 M&A?

What do you want to do at the bank?

[thesealocust]

Probably restructuring, that's actually a niche where the legal know-how seems to be moderately in demand on the business side and has much lower saturation.

[dingbat]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

[thesealocust]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

...

You went from 0 to obviously having no idea what you were talking about very fast in this thread. I am impressed.

[dingbat]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

...

You went from 0 to obviously having no idea what you were talking about very fast in this thread. I am impressed.

I thought about it. If you just want to do in-house counsel, it doesn't matter whether you do M&A or restructuring, it's a matter of working often enough with the banks that they feel comfortable that you can do the job.
If you want to do finance, then M&A is about bringing in deals, so, if you can bring in clients, they'll hire you. Restructuring, on the other hand, requires more specific knowledge where the bulk of the work can't just be handed down to low-level monkeys (sorry, analysts), so you actually need to know your shit

[Bildungsroman]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

...

You went from 0 to obviously having no idea what you were talking about very fast in this thread. I am impressed.

I thought about it. If you just want to do in-house counsel, it doesn't matter whether you do M&A or restructuring, it's a matter of working often enough with the banks that they feel comfortable that you can do the job.
If you want to do finance, then M&A is about bringing in deals, so, if you can bring in clients, they'll hire you. Restructuring, on the other hand, requires more specific knowledge where the bulk of the work can't just be handed down to low-level monkeys (sorry, analysts), so you actually need to know your shit

(1L)

[nonprofit-prophet]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

...

You went from 0 to obviously having no idea what you were talking about very fast in this thread. I am impressed.

I thought about it. If you just want to do in-house counsel, it doesn't matter whether you do M&A or restructuring, it's a matter of working often enough with the banks that they feel comfortable that you can do the job.
If you want to do finance, then M&A is about bringing in deals, so, if you can bring in clients, they'll hire you. Restructuring, on the other hand, requires more specific knowledge where the bulk of the work can't just be handed down to low-level monkeys (sorry, analysts), so you actually need to know your shit

(1L)

nearly 5k posts as a 1L? dang

[thesealocust]

nearly 5k posts as a 1L? dang

'dat LSAT forum?

[dingbat]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

...

You went from 0 to obviously having no idea what you were talking about very fast in this thread. I am impressed.

I thought about it. If you just want to do in-house counsel, it doesn't matter whether you do M&A or restructuring, it's a matter of working often enough with the banks that they feel comfortable that you can do the job.
If you want to do finance, then M&A is about bringing in deals, so, if you can bring in clients, they'll hire you. Restructuring, on the other hand, requires more specific knowledge where the bulk of the work can't just be handed down to low-level monkeys (sorry, analysts), so you actually need to know your shit

(1L)

yeah, but with real world experience (and more familiarity with bank hiring practices than you)

[Anonymous User]

Why do people think that Weil/KE restructuring--overwhelmingly debtor-side practices--translate into placement with banks? Spreyregen's stint with Goldman is an obvious exception, but one would think that banks would want people who have focused on creditor-side work. Yes, the debtor-side folks are involved with negotiating and drafting important creditor-side documents (DIP orders and the like), but the focus is still much different.

I'm at one of the firms in question, and I certainly don't expect many finance ops. It seems like the goal for a lot of people is to find their way into a PE fund or a distressed investment firm (think Oaktree or-- for those with real stars in their eyes--certain parts of Bain).

[Anonymous User]

Exit to a PE firm/ vulture fund in a legal role or as a trader/investor?

I know some of our friends on XO were talking about lateraling out of restructuring in a biz capacity but that was back in boom times 06-

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... forum_id=2

[Anonymous User]

lol boomtimes. That XOers bro went 6 years BK --> UBS Associate. preftigous

[thesealocust]

lol boomtimes. That XOers bro went 6 years BK --> UBS Associate. preftigous

(insert joke about UBS sucking here)

[dingbat]

lol boomtimes. That XOers bro went 6 years BK --> UBS Associate. preftigous

That's just stupid.
Word of advice: do not leave biglaw for banking if the position isn't at least VP (or you were being counselled out, of course)

[thesealocust]

lol boomtimes. That XOers bro went 6 years BK --> UBS Associate. preftigous

That's just stupid.
Word of advice: do not leave biglaw for banking if the position isn't at least VP (or you were being counselled out, of course)

. . .

[Old Gregg]

You have to be careful here. Finance is not the end all of be all.

Biglaw to back office finance is quite commonplace.

But if you want to lateral into business-side/front office, the move is quite difficult. IMO pretty much only happens from places like WLRK, Cravath, and S&C, maybe Cleary and Davis Polk.

IMO, the "right" inhouse opportunity is being able to move to a part of the firm or company where the sausage is made. Law is a service industry. Law firms are great because the lawyers are kings of law firms. But when you move over to a company, you are merely providing support for a business, and not doing the business itself. IMO, a non-GC position inhouse has the same respect/cred in the company as a paralegal in a law firm: not a ton of upward mobility in terms of seniority or pay.

If you want to make sausage, it's a lot tougher. Like I said, for banks, you really need to be at the tippity top. Same for PE and hedge funds. You have to also have a strong understanding if th business side of the work you're doing. Simply running deals, as hard as it is, confers no understanding of the analytics and modeling that happen business side.

I would love to be wrong here, so a more experienced atty should chime in if i am. Personally, I see a lot of potential in late stage start ups. Company is big enough where working there is not as big a job risk as an early stage, and the smaller size of the company means higher fluidity of roles and more upward mobilitiy.

Edit: tldr: I kinda groan when someon says that they lateraled into a bank or a hedge fund or a private equity fund. It sounds great and like something that pays a lot of money. But the roles are almost always back office compliance roles that don't involve interesting work and don't really pay the $$$ associated with working for these places.

[thesealocust]

Legal positions in major banks still generally (as I understand it) pay better than legal positions in other corporations. While people are right to point out that being inhouse legal counsel at Goldman is fundamentally different and likely much less remunerative than doing the business work at Goldman, the same divide is going to exist at any business. Lots of corporate lawyers move to inhouse counsel positions, but there's still arguably something to be said for being inhouse at a bank vs. being inhouse at some other kind of major corporation.

[Old Gregg]

BB banks will pay more, but not that much, and the pay narrows when you consider equity that a company might give. Also, with higher pay comes higher hours expectations. From what I've seen, working inhouse at Goldman is not "just do 9-5 inhouse bro."


From what I've seen, exiting around years 4-5 from a corporate law background should net you at least 160k all in, assuming you're coming from a good firm. I've seen plenty of 200-220k exits, and those are dominated by finance. I've also seen the rare 400k exit.

I know an associate who was able to score business side at a bank/PE/hedge fund. Just for some perspective, he or she was considered a superstar in his/her class.

[Anonymous User]

Are most of those 200-220k exits from M&A/Cap markets?

[Anonymous User]

and tax ^

[Borg]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

...

You went from 0 to obviously having no idea what you were talking about very fast in this thread. I am impressed.

I thought about it. If you just want to do in-house counsel, it doesn't matter whether you do M&A or restructuring, it's a matter of working often enough with the banks that they feel comfortable that you can do the job.
If you want to do finance, then M&A is about bringing in deals, so, if you can bring in clients, they'll hire you. Restructuring, on the other hand, requires more specific knowledge where the bulk of the work can't just be handed down to low-level monkeys (sorry, analysts), so you actually need to know your shit

A somewhat correct conclusion reached by absolutely horrendous logic. M&A, cap markets, and restructuring are all good starting points. "Bringing in clients" as a lawyer is not what banks are going to be looking for. That will help you make partner at the firm, but a bank isn't going to give a shit about this. They will care about you understanding the underlying finance in a deal very well, and your ability to hustle and work with their team and do the things good bankers do. It's laughable that someone would go to a bank and say "look, I bring in clients!" and then have the bank go "wow! you must be a really good salesman and we try to sell deals, you're hired!"

At my bank, about 50% of MDs are ex-lawyers. Making the move to a banking job is not that uncommon, but you have to know how to position yourself if you don't want to be shunted into an in-house counsel role. That involves demonstrating significant ability in financial matters, and finding a way to get your resume to the right people. If you're a lawyer and you know nothing about how to read financial statements, you're in for a world of pain and failure in making this transition. If you want to do this, you have two major goals to accomplish: 1) learn as much as you can about finance, and 2) make friends with bankers.

With respect to number one, I recommend enrolling in a course through Training the Street. All the big banks use them for training, and they will teach you enough about how to model using Excel and doing a discounted cash flow that you will be able to hold your own in banking interviews and show that you are capable of handling numbers. http://trainingthestreet.com/.

As far as the second, you will need to get your resume to the right place and it's much easier if you've got banker friends. I don't know how someone would go about making a bunch of banker friends out of thin air, but it helped me tremendously to call up some guys I have hung out with since undergrad and ask them to pass my resume along. Go out and be social I guess.

[aca0260]

Borg - you went law --> bank? You start as an associate?

[dingbat]

If you can bring in clients, M&A.

...

You went from 0 to obviously having no idea what you were talking about very fast in this thread. I am impressed.

I thought about it. If you just want to do in-house counsel, it doesn't matter whether you do M&A or restructuring, it's a matter of working often enough with the banks that they feel comfortable that you can do the job.
If you want to do finance, then M&A is about bringing in deals, so, if you can bring in clients, they'll hire you. Restructuring, on the other hand, requires more specific knowledge where the bulk of the work can't just be handed down to low-level monkeys (sorry, analysts), so you actually need to know your shit

A somewhat correct conclusion reached by absolutely horrendous logic. M&A, cap markets, and restructuring are all good starting points. "Bringing in clients" as a lawyer is not what banks are going to be looking for. That will help you make partner at the firm, but a bank isn't going to give a shit about this. They will care about you understanding the underlying finance in a deal very well, and your ability to hustle and work with their team and do the things good bankers do. It's laughable that someone would go to a bank and say "look, I bring in clients!" and then have the bank go "wow! you must be a really good salesman and we try to sell deals, you're hired!"

At my bank, about 50% of MDs are ex-lawyers. Making the move to a banking job is not that uncommon, but you have to know how to position yourself if you don't want to be shunted into an in-house counsel role. That involves demonstrating significant ability in financial matters, and finding a way to get your resume to the right people. If you're a lawyer and you know nothing about how to read financial statements, you're in for a world of pain and failure in making this transition. If you want to do this, you have two major goals to accomplish: 1) learn as much as you can about finance, and 2) make friends with bankers.

With respect to number one, I recommend enrolling in a course through Training the Street. All the big banks use them for training, and they will teach you enough about how to model using Excel and doing a discounted cash flow that you will be able to hold your own in banking interviews and show that you are capable of handling numbers. http://trainingthestreet.com/.

As far as the second, you will need to get your resume to the right place and it's much easier if you've got banker friends. I don't know how someone would go about making a bunch of banker friends out of thin air, but it helped me tremendously to call up some guys I have hung out with since undergrad and ask them to pass my resume along. Go out and be social I guess.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Let me restate what I meant:
If you want to enter in a role of VP or better, you need to be able to bring in clients AND have a good financial understanding - e.g. if you can't read financials, you're dead in the water. But just like no one makes partner in a law firm unless they can bring in clients, no one makes MD in banking unless they can bring in clients. (VP not necessarily, but in that case they're looking to fill a very specific need, which you would need to match pretty closely). VP and MD jobs will predominantly be a matter of connections, as listed above.

You do not want to enter in a position lower than VP (i.e. Associate - I'm going to assume no one leaves biglaw for an analyst position) because you'll be earning less for the same (if not more) hours. Unless you've been counselled out and are clutching at straws, I'm hard-pressed to find a reason to do so. (OK, maybe as a 2nd or 3rd year associate you realize you hate the law)

I apologize for my earlier answers. my knowledge in the industry is detailed and I do know what I'm talking about. However, I've been fairly quick with my responses, rather than giving the kind of detailed answers required

[Borg]

Borg - you went law --> bank? You start as an associate?

No, I am going JD/MBA --> bank. Yes, I will be an associate when I start next year.