Top Law Schools

I keep hearing that working in private equity means you are working with fresh-out-of-college punks who make just as much, if not more, than you. The same goes for M&A, except instead of private equity firms, you are working with investment bankers who make you their bitch. How much truth is there to the fact that you are doing tasks that no one really cares about because it's the legal mumbo jumbo that "has to be done"? This is so vastly contrary to what some M&A lawyers tell me about why they enjoy their jobs. Are they just delusional, or are some people equally cynical?

I guess what I am asking is -- is M&A/PE that much worse than litigation if you wanted to be a cynic about it?

Also, is the lifestyle that comes from private equity/M&A that much worse to your relationships (i.e. last minute weekend emergency) compared to a litigation lifestyle?

Anonymous User wrote:I keep hearing that working in private equity means you are working with fresh-out-of-college punks who make just as much, if not more, than you. The same goes for M&A, except instead of private equity firms, you are working with investment bankers who make you their bitch. How much truth is there to the fact that you are doing tasks that no one really cares about because it's the legal mumbo jumbo that "has to be done"? This is so vastly contrary to what some M&A lawyers tell me about why they enjoy their jobs. Are they just delusional, or are some people equally cynical?

I guess what I am asking is -- is litigation all that different if you wanted to be a cynic about it?

Also, is the lifestyle that comes from private equity/M&A that much worse to your relationships (i.e. last minute weekend emergency) compared to a litigation lifestyle?

"Fresh out of college punks." Won't we all be "fresh out of college punks?"

FairchildFLT wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I keep hearing that working in private equity means you are working with fresh-out-of-college punks who make just as much, if not more, than you. The same goes for M&A, except instead of private equity firms, you are working with investment bankers who make you their bitch. How much truth is there to the fact that you are doing tasks that no one really cares about because it's the legal mumbo jumbo that "has to be done"? This is so vastly contrary to what some M&A lawyers tell me about why they enjoy their jobs. Are they just delusional, or are some people equally cynical?

I guess what I am asking is -- is litigation all that different if you wanted to be a cynic about it?

Also, is the lifestyle that comes from private equity/M&A that much worse to your relationships (i.e. last minute weekend emergency) compared to a litigation lifestyle?

"Fresh out of college punks." Won't we all be "fresh out of college punks?"

No, most of us are 25 or older, not 21. People with work experience are 27+.

Also, I am thinking more along the lines of when you are a mid-level/senior-level associate and you are still dealing with the younger folks.

I guess what I am asking is -- is litigation all that different if you wanted to be a cynic about it?

It is immensely and vastly different in almost every conceivable way other than that you need a law degree and record your time for things you do.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

I guess what I am asking is -- is litigation all that different if you wanted to be a cynic about it?

It is immensely and vastly different in almost every conceivable way other than that you need a law degree and record your time for things you do.

What I meant to ask was: Is it that much worse than litigation when you want to be a cynic about it.

it takes a few years for banker-types to move over to the buy-side (e.g. PE, hedge funds..) so you're typically not gonna find fresh out of college grads at most PE firms (unless it's a really small firm or something). I have friends at banks (e.g. JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley) that were giving orders or requesting work from associates when they were fresh out of college though...but there are a lot more younger analysts at those major financial institutions.

PE bros have usually already been at a bank for 2 years and/or have an MBA, so they are actually pretty similar. Yes, they'll treat you like the servant you are, but they can be cool/nice/chill. Bankers can be younger and sometimes intense, but for the most part, they will have been around for a few years before they start dealing with the attorneys on the deal team.

It's usually not until you're a 3rd-4th year that you start dealing directly with the bankers; most junior work is still just for your immediate supervisor and sometimes for a client.

PE analysts are not "punks". It's a tough job and these people are the smartest of the smart. If they had gone to law school they would all be HYS.

Anonymous User wrote:PE analysts are not "punks". It's a tough job and these people are the smartest of the smart. If they had gone to law school they would all be HYS.

lol, you mad bro?

Also, sweet use of annon.

Anonymous User wrote:I keep hearing that working in private equity means you are working with fresh-out-of-college punks who make just as much, if not more, than you. The same goes for M&A, except instead of private equity firms, you are working with investment bankers who make you their bitch. How much truth is there to the fact that you are doing tasks that no one really cares about because it's the legal mumbo jumbo that "has to be done"? This is so vastly contrary to what some M&A lawyers tell me about why they enjoy their jobs. Are they just delusional, or are some people equally cynical?

I guess what I am asking is -- is M&A/PE that much worse than litigation if you wanted to be a cynic about it?

Also, is the lifestyle that comes from private equity/M&A that much worse to your relationships (i.e. last minute weekend emergency) compared to a litigation lifestyle?

why do you care how much your clients are making or if they're making more than you? I don't really see how this would affect your perception of the work

and so what if your clients think of you as a servant? Law is a service industry after all...lawyers are hired by the bankers and PE guys to do the legal work that, like it or not, must be done. If you really think about it, every transaction has legal and finance issues that are interrelated. It's just two sides of the same coin. Doesn't matter what your clients think about you so long as they keep coming back to you.

Anonymous User wrote:I keep hearing that working in private equity means you are working with fresh-out-of-college punks who make just as much, if not more, than you. The same goes for M&A, except instead of private equity firms, you are working with investment bankers who make you their bitch. How much truth is there to the fact that you are doing tasks that no one really cares about because it's the legal mumbo jumbo that "has to be done"? This is so vastly contrary to what some M&A lawyers tell me about why they enjoy their jobs. Are they just delusional, or are some people equally cynical?

I guess what I am asking is -- is M&A/PE that much worse than litigation if you wanted to be a cynic about it?

Also, is the lifestyle that comes from private equity/M&A that much worse to your relationships (i.e. last minute weekend emergency) compared to a litigation lifestyle?

I worked M&A and PEG prior to Law School and the above is kinda what it was like. I was straight out of college and really didn't know/care for what the legal issues were - just told the lawyers to do what was needed to get things done. But, i'm going into the M&A/PEG practice group so i know what i'm getting myself into - also i know more about it than most 1st year associates.

Mid-level PE/M&A associate here. This has not been my experience at all. I do remember hearing this in law school, though.

It is not uncommon for me to "push around" junior investment bankers (e.g., telling them to upload documents to the data room, tell them to follow up on diligence requests with the client, pull certain documents/missing files from records, etc.). Generally, the only instruction I have ever really received from PE folks or ibankers comes from members of their team that are 10+ years out of college, minimum. More often, they are 15-20 years out of college. Ultimately, you should not give a shit about their age though. If they are smart and have their shit together, you will not care about their age and you will likely not be aware of their age unless you can find them online or meet them in person. Often you will just interact by phone/email.

It completely depends upon the client and there is no way to predict it. Experiences will vary drastically within the same firm in the same office and same practice group. If your client is a PE fund and they have a GC, you will likely interact with the legal team. If not, you interact with business folks. Plenty of M&A deals do not have investment bankers on them at all. Other deals have investment bankers that defer to the lawyers on a lot of issues or just interact with the partner. Others still have little involvement after the term sheet is signed other than setting up the data room and helping work through certain business issues (much of which will likely be invisible to a junior associate other than the data room stuff).

Slightly off-track, but I saw it discussed above....when considering transactional work versus litigation at a large law firm, think about your long-term career prospects. Are you interested in business? If so, corporate is likely a better choice. This is an oversimplification but I think it is generally true for most that I have met. Litigation means you will likely remain at a law firm or go into government. If you are transactional, you will likely go in-house. In-house does not mean easy street, but it means more involvement in business/legal mix. Personally, I would put less focus on the short term considerations (like more fire drills if you go to transactional practice) because it will just be short term pain. Like chess, you should be focused on how this move sets you up for your next move.

If you're on a high-profile, multi billion dollar deal, everyone involved (board, bankers, and lawyers) is highly competent, and there's a lot of mutual respect. I think the only bankers who say "lawyers are bitches" are summer analysts.

Anonymous User wrote:Mid-level PE/M&A associate here. This has not been my experience at all. I do remember hearing this in law school, though.

It is not uncommon for me to "push around" junior investment bankers (e.g., telling them to upload documents to the data room, tell them to follow up on diligence requests with the client, pull certain documents/missing files from records, etc.).

Sounds like you're involved in some high level strategizing with your clients

911 crisis actor wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Mid-level PE/M&A associate here. This has not been my experience at all. I do remember hearing this in law school, though.

It is not uncommon for me to "push around" junior investment bankers (e.g., telling them to upload documents to the data room, tell them to follow up on diligence requests with the client, pull certain documents/missing files from records, etc.).

Sounds like you're involved in some high level strategizing with your clients

Mid-level PE/M&A associate again.

Those examples take up a large part of time for junior investment bankers. As you become a mid-level/senior associate, you participate in calls with the more senior investment bankers in which more high level strategy is discussed, but you don't run the call or weigh in much - maybe a little. Frankly, you do not have the knowledge-base at that stage to add much...you just haven't done enough deals and you have only begun to become involved in the business issues that truly drive the deal. You have to walk before you run. There is a lot to learn before you get to the stage of strategizing with the business folks. If you tried to weigh in on these issues as a junior/mid-level, you would sound like an idiot, no matter how smart you are.

everyone i know who works/worked at MFH BIGBANKS said they treated the lawyers like shit

Big Shrimpin wrote:everyone i know who works/worked at MFH BIGBANKS said they treated the lawyers like shit

That's what they claim, and then they build DCF models in excel for us until 4AM during yet another night at the office.

Probably more accurate to say that everyone treats everyone as shittily as they can get away with.

Anonymous User wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:everyone i know who works/worked at MFH BIGBANKS said they treated the lawyers like shit

That's what they claim, and then they build DCF models in excel for us until 4AM during yet another night at the office.

Probably more accurate to say that everyone treats everyone as shittily as they can get away with.

the real question is why some bankers are so obsessed w/ comparing themselves to lawyers. I remember this one ex-banker's blog where he goes on and on for several pages about why the lawyers had it so bad. completely out of nowhere, dude just felt compelled to write a lengthy screed on this topic...

almost makes you pity him

Big Shrimpin wrote:everyone i know who works/worked at MFH BIGBANKS said they treated the lawyers like shit

I'm in-house at a "MFH BIGBANK" and that's not at all my experience, either as to how the bankers treat us or how our bankers/we treat outside counsel.

As others said, we don't really have ANY interface with young associates and for the most part its not junior FO guys coordinating/working with outside counsel.

OP here. So, in summary, do not put much stock in what people say, especially when cross-profession ego is involved. I shouldn't have expected more from bankers and lawyers who like to puff their chests.

JenDarby wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:everyone i know who works/worked at MFH BIGBANKS said they treated the lawyers like shit

I'm in-house at a "MFH BIGBANK" and that's not at all my experience, either as to how the bankers treat us or how our bankers/we treat outside counsel.

As others said, we don't really have ANY interface with young associates and for the most part its not junior FO guys coordinating/working with outside counsel.

But.. but... but.... what about the people here who needed to believe this to rationalize their NYC hate?!?!

JenDarby wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:everyone i know who works/worked at MFH BIGBANKS said they treated the lawyers like shit

I'm in-house at a "MFH BIGBANK" and that's not at all my experience, either as to how the bankers treat us or how our bankers/we treat outside counsel.

As others said, we don't really have ANY interface with young associates and for the most part its not junior FO guys coordinating/working with outside counsel.

word...i meant to qualify - these ppl were the bankers (IB doods), not inhouse lawyers...they all just say they hate the lawyers..but thats just what they told me so iono...but that's basically standard across the board for both corp/lit lawyers...everyone hates us

sandiego222 wrote:

JenDarby wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:everyone i know who works/worked at MFH BIGBANKS said they treated the lawyers like shit

I'm in-house at a "MFH BIGBANK" and that's not at all my experience, either as to how the bankers treat us or how our bankers/we treat outside counsel.

As others said, we don't really have ANY interface with young associates and for the most part its not junior FO guys coordinating/working with outside counsel.

But.. but... but.... what about the people here who needed to believe this to rationalize their NYC hate?!?!

dude ive lived in MFH for a while and i still dont know how i feel about it...some days i hate it, some days its cool...

something about screaming bums and tourists/brunchers walking 10-across on sidewalks...