M&A vs Emerging Companies Law Forum

[sonyvaio18]

Hi Everyone,

can people comment on these two specializations and if you believe the below are true and have other things to add?


Why Emerging Companies
* more responsibilities early on: meeting with clients, drafting, learning about business strategy/operations
* better understanding of exit opportunities: meet with a ton of clients who want to hire you, get a good sense for what those clients are actually like
* types of clients: more “fun”, won’t email you late at night, less sophisticated
* more private company work that may be more useful for companies/business
See: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=238574[/list][/list]

Why M&A work
* “better” exit opportunities
* in more “prestigious” firms
* less pigeonholed into “just” start-up work
* more stable - less likely to be destroyed by economic downturns

[PB&J.D.]

Fellow rising 2L, so I essentially know nothing substantive:

I wouldn't be so certain about the lack of late night emails/calls in EC. As one of the other commenters mentioned (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p8134539), the more involved nature of doing EC/VC deals means you'll be on the hook for more than diligence or minor drafting and thus need to be more accessible to the clients/partners. For startups with less sophisticated execs, this means they will often reach out whenever they want to do something (or worse, after they do it). Couple that with the greater frequency of smaller assignments and you'll pretty much be on call at all hours.

[EliPedDH]

Added my thoughts below. I think it's a good idea to work as a junior emerging companies associate only if you have no prior experience in business and knows that you want to do emerging companies work at a law firm or in-house in the long-term.

Hi Everyone,

can people comment on these two specializations and if you believe the below are true and have other things to add?


Why Emerging Companies
* more responsibilities early on: meeting with clients, drafting, learning about business strategy/operations. Associates will take on more responsibility early on. However, emerging companies work becomes repetitive quickly. Associates will be drafting the same types of documents over and over again. Moreover, the documents associates draft are so standardized that computer programs are almost capable of doing it, even though computer cannot practice law.
* better understanding of exit opportunities: meet with a ton of clients who want to hire you, get a good sense for what those clients are actually like. Associates get to really learn the business of startups and can exit into these companies. However, M&A associates with prior business backgrounds at Wachtell/Sullivan/Cravath (and many associates at these firms have solid business experiences at funds and investment banks prior to law school) can also get such positions.
* types of clients: more “fun”, won’t email you late at night, less sophisticated. Clients are clients. Entrepreneurs work very hard and are more likely to have unreasonable expectations due to emerging companies' lack of sophistication.
* more private company work that may be more useful for companies/business. Not sure if this is true. From what I've seen, private companies work prior to Series C tend to be very standardized. Work associated with IPOs and acquisitions of emerging companies are quite interesting.
See: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=238574[/list][/list]

Why M&A work
* “better” exit opportunities. The exit opportunities are different, even though I wouldn't describe it as intrinsically "better." M&A associates at Wachtell/Sullivan/Cravath tend to exit into investment banks and F100 corporations instead of early stage companies.
* in more “prestigious” firms. In the Bay Area, firms like Cooley/WSGR/Fenwick stand for quality in the eyes of startups even if they lack the nationwide prestige of Cravath/Wachtell/Sullivan.
* less pigeonholed into “just” start-up work. This can be an important advantage of doing M&A vs. emerging companies work, especially since startup legal work are often viewed as low value-adding and standardized.
* more stable - less likely to be destroyed by economic downturns. Not sure if this is true.

[sonyvaio18]

Hey Eli,

Thanks for your thoughts! if I can ask you a few more questions:

1) What field are you in now and how/why did you choose it?

2) if i eventually do want to work more with start-ups and technology, would it make sense to go into emerging companies work? I'm wondering which specialty will give me the most transferable skills.

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

bump, as I'm considering this too for EIP. The emerging companies lawyers I've interviewed with seem more social than NY lawyers and seem to enjoy/be passionate about their jobs more. Do others agree?