Can you get In-House from Top Restructuring? Forum

[stevenashhair]

Read a bunch of information on Chambers and am interested in debtor bankruptcy for a variety of reasons- face paced, get to deal with a federal statute, blend of corporate and lit, early substantive work etc. Provided I keep my grades up and can get an SA at a place like Kirkland or Weil, should you be worried about not being able to have any opportunities say 5 years in? I understand few people are made partner and I can't find much info about what happens to attorneys who go that route and build up some experience in the area. Is in house possible?

[Old Gregg]

Keep your grades up and then come back.

[GreatNorth87]

Judging by your post, a number of things need to go correctly for you to even worry about going in-house. 1) Earn Good grades, 2) Write on journal, 3) Obtain an interview with V20 firms, 4) interview well enough to obtain SA with said firms, 5) Do excellent work during SA, 6) Do said work well enough to obtain offer, 7) Graduate, 8 Pass bar, 9) start work, 10) endure five years (minimum) at ruthless firm, 11) obtain in-house position

I'd focus on steps 1-10 before worrying about going in-house. While you can do, the challenge is getting to the top restructuring firm and working there.

[84651846190]

The market could be drastically different by the time you're actually in a position to get an in house job. So any advice we could give you right now has a high probability of being inaccurate.

[fathergoose]

When you say In-House for debtor side bankruptcy, where are you talking about? Internal counsel at an investment bank?

[bdubs]

I'm willing to humor the general idea in this thread.

I imagine that bankruptcy management teams generally bring in some sort of in-house bankruptcy counsel to help them manage outside counsel. I don't know how big those teams are though. If it's only one guy, it's probably a former partner from Weil, K&E, etc.. but he might need a lackey.

[ExAnt3]

How would this change if someone practiced at a firm that does primarily creditor-side work? I would imagine that an associate at one of these firms would have an easier time going in house at a fund, bank, etc. that a debtor-side attorney would, no?

[fathergoose]

Creditor's side attorneys would certainly have an easier time going in house but from what I understand it would be to one of the creditors they represented at their firm (i.e. a commercial bank and the like). From the debtor's side I would think the best out from big law bk would be to one of the restructuring consulting or investment banks after 3-5 years or so as an associate at a law firm. A significant number of the MDs/principals/directors at the ibanks and consulting firms who do this kind of work have JDs and background working in the legal field. That being said, it would require lots and lots and lots of things to fall in to place correctly and I wouldn't really worry about it at this point.

[stevenashhair]

How possible is it to do K&E NY restructuring -> NSP (which I understand ~75% make) -> lower V100 equity partner?

[Anonymous User]

How possible is it to do K&E NY restructuring -> NSP (which I understand ~75% make) -> lower V100 equity partner?

Not sure if ever true, but the days of 75% making NSP in the restructuring group are gone. The group is contracting over time (although there are a ton of new restructuring associates incoming).

More to your plan though: Making NSP and then trying to lateral is shit. You're basically a senior associate by another name. The best years to lateral out of K&E are 4 to 5ish.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if ever true, but the days of 75% making NSP in the restructuring group are gone. The group is contracting over time (although there are a ton of new restructuring associates incoming).

How do you know this?

Making NSP and then trying to lateral is shit.

This is false. It really depends on what stage you're at NSP and what you're aiming for. Know plenty who have lateraled into equity partnership (even at higher PPP firms) and know plenty who have flamed out. The factors are too individual at that point. But the consensus is that the partner title is very helpful, especially after year 2 at NSP (where you wouldn't be a "senior associate" at any other top law firm.

Re: lateraling out at years 4-5, it's difficult to tell. That's the conventional wisdom for pretty much any big law firm, but not sure whether it applies if it's between years 4-5 and NSP.

Source: I work at K&E. Curious what your source is.

[Pokemon]

Creditor's side attorneys would certainly have an easier time going in house but from what I understand it would be to one of the creditors they represented at their firm (i.e. a commercial bank and the like). From the debtor's side I would think the best out from big law bk would be to one of the restructuring consulting or investment banks after 3-5 years or so as an associate at a law firm. A significant number of the MDs/principals/directors at the ibanks and consulting firms who do this kind of work have JDs and background working in the legal field. That being said, it would require lots and lots and lots of things to fall in to place correctly and I wouldn't really worry about it at this point.

I always thought creditor side was more litigation oriented, and debtor side was more corporate looking. Wouldn't that mean that debtor side people would have an easier time lateraling?

[fathergoose]

Creditor's side attorneys would certainly have an easier time going in house but from what I understand it would be to one of the creditors they represented at their firm (i.e. a commercial bank and the like). From the debtor's side I would think the best out from big law bk would be to one of the restructuring consulting or investment banks after 3-5 years or so as an associate at a law firm. A significant number of the MDs/principals/directors at the ibanks and consulting firms who do this kind of work have JDs and background working in the legal field. That being said, it would require lots and lots and lots of things to fall in to place correctly and I wouldn't really worry about it at this point.

I always thought creditor side was more litigation oriented, and debtor side was more corporate looking. Wouldn't that mean that debtor side people would have an easier time lateraling?

Much fewer places to lateral on the debtor side

[bdubs]

Creditor's side attorneys would certainly have an easier time going in house but from what I understand it would be to one of the creditors they represented at their firm (i.e. a commercial bank and the like). From the debtor's side I would think the best out from big law bk would be to one of the restructuring consulting or investment banks after 3-5 years or so as an associate at a law firm. A significant number of the MDs/principals/directors at the ibanks and consulting firms who do this kind of work have JDs and background working in the legal field. That being said, it would require lots and lots and lots of things to fall in to place correctly and I wouldn't really worry about it at this point.

I always thought creditor side was more litigation oriented, and debtor side was more corporate looking. Wouldn't that mean that debtor side people would have an easier time lateraling?

Companies try not to go through bankruptcy on a regular basis.

[ExAnt3]

What's NSP?

[bdubs]

What's NSP?

non-share partner. It's a weird K&E thing where they give you the title of partner at 6 years out, but only promote a portion of NSP to equity partner after 8-9 years.

[Anonymous User]

What's NSP?

non-share partner. It's a weird K&E thing where they give you the title of partner at 6 years out, but only promote a portion of NSP to equity partner after 8-9 years.

*after 6 years (so the 7th year), and then promotion to shares is after 4-5 years, so 10-11 years.

[Pokemon]

Creditor's side attorneys would certainly have an easier time going in house but from what I understand it would be to one of the creditors they represented at their firm (i.e. a commercial bank and the like). From the debtor's side I would think the best out from big law bk would be to one of the restructuring consulting or investment banks after 3-5 years or so as an associate at a law firm. A significant number of the MDs/principals/directors at the ibanks and consulting firms who do this kind of work have JDs and background working in the legal field. That being said, it would require lots and lots and lots of things to fall in to place correctly and I wouldn't really worry about it at this point.

I always thought creditor side was more litigation oriented, and debtor side was more corporate looking. Wouldn't that mean that debtor side people would have an easier time lateraling?

Companies try not to go through bankruptcy on a regular basis.

Now I feel stupid...