Top Law Schools

I am a midlevel in a subfield of a common big law transactional area (not M&A). There is enough of a difference between my subfield and the general field that clients on both sides of my type of transactions end up hiring the same handful of law firms 90% of the time.

I was contacted by an HR representative of a financial institution. An affiliate of the financial institution that specializes in my area is looking to hire a lawyer for a position inside of that affiliate. The role would be a legal role, but the reporting structure would be directly through the directors and MDs of the affiliate. The leader of the affiliate wants to meet to discuss the position.

Questions:

1. Anybody have any thoughts on this kind of setup?

2. My intent has always been to wait until I am a senior associate to look around at in-house positions and I don't know much about this process. Stupid question, I know, but I was asked to provide a list of transactions I've worked on. My experience is basically 50/50 in terms of deals that are in the public record vs. not. How much detail would be the norm to provide in response to this request (obviously, without violating confidentiality)?

As to the setup or timing, can't weigh in as i'm not familiar.

As to the deal-sheet question, i have provided (and people i know also have provided) just a summary with no true identifying details, as well as a description of what my role was, and it has worked out fine. "General" meaning like "Represented private equity firm in its proposed $350 million acquisition of an international manufacturing company. Lead associate on drafting and negotiating Merger Agreement and disclosure schedules."

Or something like that. I think, although i don't know about your specific practice area, that the reviewer generally cares more about what you did (e.g., did you do 1/5 of diligence and provide riders for a report or did you run the deal?) than all the details of the transaction. The transaction details basically just need to inform what they're really interested in.

Anonymous User wrote:The role would be a legal role, but the reporting structure would be directly through the directors and MDs of the affiliate. The leader of the affiliate wants to meet to discuss the position.

Questions:

1. Anybody have any thoughts on this kind of setup?

Is your concern that you wouldn't be reporting to a GC? Ive talked to in house attorneys where the department is small enough that they report to the CFO directly.

Probably depends entirely on the personality and managing environment of the directors.

masque du pantsu wrote:As to the setup or timing, can't weigh in as i'm not familiar.

As to the deal-sheet question, i have provided (and people i know also have provided) just a summary with no true identifying details, as well as a description of what my role was, and it has worked out fine. "General" meaning like "Represented private equity firm in its proposed $350 million acquisition of an international manufacturing company. Lead associate on drafting and negotiating Merger Agreement and disclosure schedules."

Or something like that. I think, although i don't know about your specific practice area, that the reviewer generally cares more about what you did (e.g., did you do 1/5 of diligence and provide riders for a report or did you run the deal?) than all the details of the transaction. The transaction details basically just need to inform what they're really interested in.

Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

favabeansoup wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:The role would be a legal role, but the reporting structure would be directly through the directors and MDs of the affiliate. The leader of the affiliate wants to meet to discuss the position.

Questions:

1. Anybody have any thoughts on this kind of setup?

Is your concern that you wouldn't be reporting to a GC? Ive talked to in house attorneys where the department is small enough that they report to the CFO directly.

Probably depends entirely on the personality and managing environment of the directors.

What was described to me sounded like a lawyer integrated into the business unit, instead of an in house lawyer interfacing with the business unit. I''m used to seeing the latter.

The two things that jump out at me are that I don't see is a clear path of career progression (as a lawyer, at least) in this setup and I'm not really sure where mentoring would come from.

I think this is one of those jobs that might eventually allow you to transition over to the business side. Who cares if there isn't a GC to mentor you?

Being integrated into a business unit means that you're going to get exposure and connections that are not necessarily legal. Additional skills and connections are always welcome.