Corporate Finance representing lenders--exit options after big law? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm slated to do lender-side representation at a top firm for this practice area. I'm wondering how limited my exit options will be and whether or not I should try to get into a different practice area. How marketable will I be for in-house positions after a few years? Can I go in-house anywhere besides a bank? If I switch firms, will it be hard to go to borrower side representation? Thanks in advance.

[ruski]

I'm slated to do lender-side representation at a top firm for this practice area. I'm wondering how limited my exit options will be and whether or not I should try to get into a different practice area. How marketable will I be for in-house positions after a few years? Can I go in-house anywhere besides a bank? If I switch firms, will it be hard to go to borrower side representation? Thanks in advance.

do a search. this has been addressed recently in a couple threads I think. in short, your exit options will suck. you can try going to a bank, but even that is difficult as they don't have that many lending attorneys (even if they do a lot of lending - most of the those people will be compliance analysts or originators, and the attorney positions are being fought over by every Finance Attorney in nyc). being on borrower side doesn't help much, as no borrower does enough finance deals to warrant an in house attorney.

[v5junior]

do a search. this has been addressed recently in a couple threads I think. in short, your exit options will suck. you can try going to a bank, but even that is difficult as they don't have that many lending attorneys (even if they do a lot of lending - most of the those people will be compliance analysts or originators, and the attorney positions are being fought over by every finance attorney in nyc). being on borrower side doesn't help much, as no borrower does enough finance deals to warrant an in house attorney.

I don't think the bolded is right. The exit options are very limited, but if you are truly at a top practice, it is very easy to get a spot at a bank. These places have armies of lawyers (IIRC JPM has like 1200+?), and plenty of spots for attorneys who represent lenders in financing transactions.

Of course, I don't mean to say the exit options are great--there are very few employers in the space, and there is very limited geographic flexibility. But I would not cite inability to get hired by a bank as one of the downsides.

[umichman]

just in general, when people talk about exit options do they mean only to go in-house? or do they also mean to go to small/midsize firms or go to different practice areas etc, and to exit the law entirely?

[Anonymous User]

It's all how you spin it in interviews and to recruiters. If you do leveraged finance, you have to understand the M&A side of the transaction, draft resolutions, read/amend bylaws and charters, and you work with specialist groups to draft the documents (tax, erisa, IP, environmental, real estate). While what you do is specialized, you need to pay attention to lots of different parts of the law/transaction and you generally learn just from doing deal after deal. Honestly, other than M&A and Cap Markets (which you can still do some of as a finance lawyer), its a good place to be for in-house jobs from what I've seen and heard from recruiters if you want just a general in-house role. If you are looking for deal making roles, then it is probably much harder to get than an M&A attorney.

[ruski]

interesting. I know several finance attorneys from v5-v20 who couldn't find anything inhouse and were so fed up with biglaw that they just left to a smaller firm as that was all that was available. perhaps they weren't the best intervewers, or wanted too a high a salary, im not sure.

[jkpolk]

ya you work in house at a bank. you can do some other stuff but that's the easy one.

[Anonymous User]

interesting. I know several finance attorneys from v5-v20 who couldn't find anything inhouse and were so fed up with biglaw that they just left to a smaller firm as that was all that was available. perhaps they weren't the best intervewers, or wanted too a high a salary, im not sure.

I saw that at my old firm too (V10), but I just don't see how people so involved in M&A work would have so much worse prospects unless they were't pitching themselves correctly. Maybe i'm just naive, but if you want a general in-house role reviewing an drafting contracts, then I would think finance would be great since its literally all you do (draft and review).