Top Law Schools

Can anyone shed light on exit options between investment management practice groups and M&A/PE work. Would also be curious to here about options coming from securites work. I am and SA now and it's hard to get a handle on what options are. The universal response when I ask associates is that options are great. The IM associates tell me they have the best options and Vice versa on the other side. Hard to get a grasp.

Would also appreciate any comments on the practice area in general, pros, cons, etc.

Funds/IM > MA PE > Securities

I did a summer stint in the Investment Management division of the SEC, focusing on 40 Act work. That's a sweet gig if you can land it. A lot of biglaw refugees there.

Curious about the SEC's IM division and the work done there. Could you PM me about that?

Anonymous User wrote:Funds/IM > MA PE > Securities

Does this calculus change if its hedge fund vs. VC funds vs. (public) mutual funds? Or are you lumping mutual funds in with securities work?

Realize this thread is like a year old... but have been wondering the same thing. Anyone have any new input to share. Considering 40 Act practice vs. M&A.

Thanks!

The exit options are good for both. You should consider where you want to live long-term though. if you are interested in eventually moving to a secondary market for example, M&A prepares you better for the general in-house positions that will be available there. If you want to live in NYC the rest of your life, it of course doesn't matter.

What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

BKing wrote:What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

I would think PE/Hedge fund group would give better options than a registered fund (40 Act) group just because landing at a PE/Hedge fund seems more desirable than landing at a bank/mutual fund/insurance company.

As between an IM group in general as compared to PE/M&A - it's going to lead to two different types of exits. IM groups will get you exits to funds where you keep doing funds work albeit for one client. M&A will open exits to more general corporate in-house positions. I think generally IM exits are better paying, but as someone mentioned above, less geographic flexibility.

Thanks for everyone's responses. There really does not seem to be a ton out there on these specific groups so I appreciate everyone's insights. I basically did not even know about these groups until my SA and my school basically had no relevant offerings. Any additional comments would be great!

M&A will give you a lot more options down the road, it's not even close.

IM may give you higher paying exit options on average, just because you'd be exiting into financial services industry, but there are a lot less of these positions, and they are concentrated in NYC.

Anonymous User wrote:

BKing wrote:What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

I would think PE/Hedge fund group would give better options than a registered fund (40 Act) group just because landing at a PE/Hedge fund seems more desirable than landing at a bank/mutual fund/insurance company.

As between an IM group in general as compared to PE/M&A - it's going to lead to two different types of exits. IM groups will get you exits to funds where you keep doing funds work albeit for one client. M&A will open exits to more general corporate in-house positions. I think generally IM exits are better paying, but as someone mentioned above, less geographic flexibility.

I'm now a non-NY in-house IM (private funds) person... but I generally agree with the above and all else equal, despite my desirable outcome, I would probably have preferred to start in M&A and I probably would have preferred to look for a non-legal exit (e.g., consulting) and I probably would have preferred to have not gone to law school... but it worked for me (for now) -- good pay, early exit, non-NYC.

WhiteCollarBlueShirt wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

BKing wrote:What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

I would think PE/Hedge fund group would give better options than a registered fund (40 Act) group just because landing at a PE/Hedge fund seems more desirable than landing at a bank/mutual fund/insurance company.

As between an IM group in general as compared to PE/M&A - it's going to lead to two different types of exits. IM groups will get you exits to funds where you keep doing funds work albeit for one client. M&A will open exits to more general corporate in-house positions. I think generally IM exits are better paying, but as someone mentioned above, less geographic flexibility.

I'm now a non-NY in-house IM (private funds) person... but I generally agree with the above and all else equal, despite my desirable outcome, I would probably have preferred to start in M&A and I probably would have preferred to look for a non-legal exit (e.g., consulting) and I probably would have preferred to have not gone to law school... but it worked for me (for now) -- good pay, early exit, non-NYC.

Current 2nd year in non-NYC fund formation. How early were you able to exit? Was it a client or did you apply independently?

Anonymous User wrote:

WhiteCollarBlueShirt wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

BKing wrote:What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

I would think PE/Hedge fund group would give better options than a registered fund (40 Act) group just because landing at a PE/Hedge fund seems more desirable than landing at a bank/mutual fund/insurance company.

As between an IM group in general as compared to PE/M&A - it's going to lead to two different types of exits. IM groups will get you exits to funds where you keep doing funds work albeit for one client. M&A will open exits to more general corporate in-house positions. I think generally IM exits are better paying, but as someone mentioned above, less geographic flexibility.

I'm now a non-NY in-house IM (private funds) person... but I generally agree with the above and all else equal, despite my desirable outcome, I would probably have preferred to start in M&A and I probably would have preferred to look for a non-legal exit (e.g., consulting) and I probably would have preferred to have not gone to law school... but it worked for me (for now) -- good pay, early exit, non-NYC.

Current 2nd year in non-NYC fund formation. How early were you able to exit? Was it a client or did you apply independently?

Between years 3 and 4 (not atypical in IM, but I understand it is less typical from other groups). Independent--in my experience, client exits seemed to be people closing in on becoming (or being passed over for) partner.

WhiteCollarBlueShirt wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

WhiteCollarBlueShirt wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

BKing wrote:What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

I would think PE/Hedge fund group would give better options than a registered fund (40 Act) group just because landing at a PE/Hedge fund seems more desirable than landing at a bank/mutual fund/insurance company.

As between an IM group in general as compared to PE/M&A - it's going to lead to two different types of exits. IM groups will get you exits to funds where you keep doing funds work albeit for one client. M&A will open exits to more general corporate in-house positions. I think generally IM exits are better paying, but as someone mentioned above, less geographic flexibility.

I'm now a non-NY in-house IM (private funds) person... but I generally agree with the above and all else equal, despite my desirable outcome, I would probably have preferred to start in M&A and I probably would have preferred to look for a non-legal exit (e.g., consulting) and I probably would have preferred to have not gone to law school... but it worked for me (for now) -- good pay, early exit, non-NYC.

Current 2nd year in non-NYC fund formation. How early were you able to exit? Was it a client or did you apply independently?

Between years 3 and 4 (not atypical in IM, but I understand it is less typical from other groups). Independent--in my experience, client exits seemed to be people closing in on becoming (or being passed over for) partner.

How would you compare lifestyle and comp to big law?

WhiteCollarBlueShirt wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

BKing wrote:What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

I would think PE/Hedge fund group would give better options than a registered fund (40 Act) group just because landing at a PE/Hedge fund seems more desirable than landing at a bank/mutual fund/insurance company.

As between an IM group in general as compared to PE/M&A - it's going to lead to two different types of exits. IM groups will get you exits to funds where you keep doing funds work albeit for one client. M&A will open exits to more general corporate in-house positions. I think generally IM exits are better paying, but as someone mentioned above, less geographic flexibility.

I'm now a non-NY in-house IM (private funds) person... but I generally agree with the above and all else equal, despite my desirable outcome, I would probably have preferred to start in M&A and I probably would have preferred to look for a non-legal exit (e.g., consulting) and I probably would have preferred to have not gone to law school... but it worked for me (for now) -- good pay, early exit, non-NYC.

As someone who still does IM at a law firm, totally agree with this. Like most corporate lawyers, I really just wish I wasn't doing legal work. Really tough to lateral to a general corp/M&A group after a year too, so definitely be conscious of what you end up doing when you start at your firm. But if you're stuck doing corporate legal work, IM in-house doesn't seem like a bad outcome.

How is the availability of exit options in California? Obviously not as much as NYC, but still would like to get an idea.

Anonymous User wrote:

WhiteCollarBlueShirt wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

BKing wrote:What about private funds v. PE/M&A?

I would think PE/Hedge fund group would give better options than a registered fund (40 Act) group just because landing at a PE/Hedge fund seems more desirable than landing at a bank/mutual fund/insurance company.

As between an IM group in general as compared to PE/M&A - it's going to lead to two different types of exits. IM groups will get you exits to funds where you keep doing funds work albeit for one client. M&A will open exits to more general corporate in-house positions. I think generally IM exits are better paying, but as someone mentioned above, less geographic flexibility.

I'm now a non-NY in-house IM (private funds) person... but I generally agree with the above and all else equal, despite my desirable outcome, I would probably have preferred to start in M&A and I probably would have preferred to look for a non-legal exit (e.g., consulting) and I probably would have preferred to have not gone to law school... but it worked for me (for now) -- good pay, early exit, non-NYC.

As someone who still does IM at a law firm, totally agree with this. Like most corporate lawyers, I really just wish I wasn't doing legal work. Really tough to lateral to a general corp/M&A group after a year too, so definitely be conscious of what you end up doing when you start at your firm. But if you're stuck doing corporate legal work, IM in-house doesn't seem like a bad outcome.

I thought Corporate Attorney's with one/two years were the most flexible in terms of moving over to business.

Anonymous User wrote: How would you compare lifestyle and comp to big law?

Lifestyle: Leaps and bounds better (generally a M-F job with semi-regular hours and flexibility) - YMMV (more variance than biglaw)
Comp: For me, not nearly as good when compared to the new biglaw scale, but the trade-off was still worth it - YMMV (more variance than biglaw)

Anonymous User wrote:How is the availability of exit options in California? Obviously not as much as NYC, but still would like to get an idea.

When people are hiring, it's not unusual to see IM-related stuff in the SF Bay Area. I know of one person who went from NYC biglaw IM to LA in-house, but the person was very senior. Obviously, Greater NYC (CT + NY) is the most active.

corporatemandaorbust wrote:I thought Corporate Attorney's with one/two years were the most flexible in terms of moving over to business.

M&A yes (probably reorg or something) if (and big IF) you have the relevant credentials and background and specialty (e.g., M&A experience in a particular industry) and are willing to drop back to a lower comp package (i.e., starting over, akin to an immediate post-MBA)--IM is a specialist position, no part of which directly translates to being an investment professional or consultant, if that's what you mean by business... I'm sure there are exceptions, but don't know of any except for ones who went into IR positions.