EC/VC or Tech Trans Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all. I'm starting as first year at a biglaw firm in the SF BAY area in a few months. I didn't summer with them, but I decided to take an offer with them to get out of the narrow practice group I was in at my summer firm and lack of mentors.

The new firm is having me start out as general corporate, with opportunities to focus on EC/VC work or licensing/tech trans. I'm sure l'll develop a sense for what I enjoy more after getting a few months of experience under my belt. However, I wanted to tap the collective TLS wisdom about the practices in terms of lifestyle and exit options later down the line. Thanks!

[dabigchina]

both have bad work life balance (at least at my firm)

TTG probably has the best exit ops out of biglaw at the moment.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I would spend about 2-2.5 years in TTG and go in house and never look back.

If we're talking true EC/VC, like early stage stuff, I would definitely do TTG. Doing ONLY early stage corporate work (i.e. general corporate and VC financings) is not a great path to great exit options IMO. If we're talking a firm with EC/VC but where you could/would also do some public offerings, M&A and public company representation, the junior partners and senior associates at my firm would tell you that corporate has better exit ops after 5+ years. But those jobs can be harder to land and 5 years is quite the proposition for anyone who hasn't done biglaw. Lots of gunners utterly flame out well below that.

TTG gets you in the door in house much better than corporate. I wouldn't encourage anyone to bet their careers on liking firm life but you could still do that if you wanted to in TTG.

[Anonymous User]

I would spend about 2-2.5 years in TTG and go in house and never look back.

If we're talking true EC/VC, like early stage stuff, I would definitely do TTG. Doing ONLY early stage corporate work (i.e. general corporate and VC financings) is not a great path to great exit options IMO. If we're talking a firm with EC/VC but where you could/would also do some public offerings, M&A and public company representation, the junior partners and senior associates at my firm would tell you that corporate has better exit ops after 5+ years. But those jobs can be harder to land and 5 years is quite the proposition for anyone who hasn't done biglaw. Lots of gunners utterly flame out well below that.

TTG gets you in the door in house much better than corporate. I wouldn't encourage anyone to bet their careers on liking firm life but you could still do that if you wanted to in TTG.

Thanks, this is helpful. The EC/VC route has associates focus on early stage, but also requires cap markets and M&A work on more mature company clients. I think I'm more interested in that as it's an opportunity to be outside general counsel, but passing up tech trans seems like it might be a mistake as all the tech company in-house positions seem to be for commercial counsel.

[wwwcol]

Comments above are right that tech trans probably has the best exit options in al of big law, but my impression is that companies want more than 2-2.5 years at a firm. 4-5 seems to be the threshold for most companies these days. And the hours seem miserable (not so much the # of hours but the distribution of hours - a lot of turning stuff around overnight or on 2-3 days’ notice), so 4-5 years in TT is a longggg time from my perspective

[dabigchina]

Comments above are right that tech trans probably has the best exit options in al of big law, but my impression is that companies want more than 2-2.5 years at a firm. 4-5 seems to be the threshold for most companies these days. And the hours seem miserable (not so much the # of hours but the distribution of hours - a lot of turning stuff around overnight or on 2-3 days’ notice), so 4-5 years in TT is a longggg time from my perspective

all of the TTG associates (who aren;t gunning for partner) leave within 2-3 years.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I would spend about 2-2.5 years in TTG and go in house and never look back.

If we're talking true EC/VC, like early stage stuff, I would definitely do TTG. Doing ONLY early stage corporate work (i.e. general corporate and VC financings) is not a great path to great exit options IMO. If we're talking a firm with EC/VC but where you could/would also do some public offerings, M&A and public company representation, the junior partners and senior associates at my firm would tell you that corporate has better exit ops after 5+ years. But those jobs can be harder to land and 5 years is quite the proposition for anyone who hasn't done biglaw. Lots of gunners utterly flame out well below that.

TTG gets you in the door in house much better than corporate. I wouldn't encourage anyone to bet their careers on liking firm life but you could still do that if you wanted to in TTG.

Thanks, this is helpful. The EC/VC route has associates focus on early stage, but also requires cap markets and M&A work on more mature company clients. I think I'm more interested in that as it's an opportunity to be outside general counsel, but passing up tech trans seems like it might be a mistake as all the tech company in-house positions seem to be for commercial counsel.

I get you. I do general corporate and I'm not envious of the work I pass to my TTG colleagues but in the bay area startups are hungry for commercial counsel. They'll take people with 2-3 years experience fairly easily. Some TTG groups can be a bit tough here, though. That being said attrition has been high in the corporate groups in the last couple years as well.

Also, I would be a tad wary of a place that says you'll focus on EC/VC. IME most places have more EC/VC work than they have people willing to work it. I think lots of places that are looking to slot you in an EC/VC practice but say you'll get some more mature company work on the side will not actually get you much mature company work on the side.

[Anonymous User]

I'm an EC/VC at a prominent CA firm and for people who don't really like working with start-ups, it can be a very annoying practice. I routinely am working with 10-15 clients per day, which is really inefficient for billing; and clients are really cost sensitive. Partners don't want to take a hit by writing off time, so I'm constantly battling whether to write down some of my own time so I don't get a lecture or whether to bill all my time and have the partner get cranky. I'm pretty efficient too, but at close to $700/hr as an associate, it's just tough for start-ups to swallow.

Compared to M&A where you can just bill your time and work with 2-5 clients a day (or often just one), it's a tough practice.

Tech trans can be the same way in the Bay Area and I think it's pretty boring, but I agree with others that it has the best exit opportunities.