Switched Practice Groups - In-House Question Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am class of 2015, started out doing M&A/Capital Markets work and recenrlt lateraled to an Investment Management group in another market.

I like this my new job better than my old one (mostly due to the culture, city etc.) but I still don't love the idea of working in BigLaw forever.

I know that IM attorney exit options are usually limited to funds.

Would it be plausible to pitch myself as a sort of coprorate generalist for in house positions to expand my options? Or do I have too little experience in each area?

[Anonymous User]

I'm guessing you're at K&E? Probably on the west coast, as this NYC m&a to IM seems to be a lateral combination they like. You probably have little meaningful experience in either area to market yourself as a "generalist" - you have experience doing grunt work in m&a and now IM and I don't really think that says "generalist".

There may be some (large enough to need this role) funds that would bite at this combination of entry level skills, but you'd probably be stuck in-house doing grunt work forever (diligence, sub docs, NDAs) because you don't have any real skills in either of these two somewhat intertwined but totally different practice areas. However, I do think like the Apollo/Carlyles of the world have roles where they need an in-house attorney with skills managing low-level items in both m&a and IM? Sieglur Guff recently had a search out for someone like this (check their website and you'll see legal associates with similar ish backgrounds.)

[koalatriste]

Feel free to PM me for thoughts.

[Anonymous User]

I'm guessing you're at K&E? Probably on the west coast, as this NYC m&a to IM seems to be a lateral combination they like. You probably have little meaningful experience in either area to market yourself as a "generalist" - you have experience doing grunt work in m&a and now IM and I don't really think that says "generalist".

There may be some (large enough to need this role) funds that would bite at this combination of entry level skills, but you'd probably be stuck in-house doing grunt work forever (diligence, sub docs, NDAs) because you don't have any real skills in either of these two somewhat intertwined but totally different practice areas. However, I do think like the Apollo/Carlyles of the world have roles where they need an in-house attorney with skills managing low-level items in both m&a and IM? Sieglur Guff recently had a search out for someone like this (check their website and you'll see legal associates with similar ish backgrounds.)

Thanks for the reply. I don't mean that I am looking to go in-house as a hybrid M&A/IM attorney. Rather, I mean the type of position that would typically require "1-4 years of general corporate experience" with perhaps a mention of M&A, Cap Markets, Labor etc. sprinkled in as additional bonus points.

I am basically trying to find either a start up or a large enough legal department that will look at me as someone with 3 years of transactional law experience. Is that being too ambitious given my experience?