why don't all funds lawyers go in-house? Forum

[synergy]

I'm a junior-midlevel funds associate and am wondering why anyone ever stays in funds in biglaw instead of going in-house. I see a lot of pretty senior and super senior funds associates at mine and other firms. Could be my bias but it seems like funds lawyers stick around to year 6/7/8 much more frequently than m&a or other corporate practice groups.

Meanwhile, I'm starting to get a ton of recruiters spam me about in-house funds roles where the comp is biglaw or similar so I'm wondering why anyone chooses to stay on the law firm side. In-house just seems so much better lifestyle wise.

Does a disproportionate number of funds lawyers just want to be partner? Am I the only one seeing this?

[4LTsPointingNorth]

Anecdotally, I've heard that the lifestyle for Biglaw funds work tends to be more predictable and sustainable than M&A or other corporate groups (e.g., a 60-65 billable hour week could conceivably be worked between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. M-F with only the occasional later night and only a couple hours of work on the typical weekend). Much easier to get comfortable with that sort of lifestyle, if true.

I suspect 6th or 7th year Biglaw associate comp is considerably higher than what a 4th year who went in-house is making on year 2 or 3 of their stint in-house.

[LawrenceGazebo]

I'm a junior-midlevel funds associate and am wondering why anyone ever stays in funds in biglaw instead of going in-house. I see a lot of pretty senior and super senior funds associates at mine and other firms. Could be my bias but it seems like funds lawyers stick around to year 6/7/8 much more frequently than m&a or other corporate practice groups.

Meanwhile, I'm starting to get a ton of recruiters spam me about in-house funds roles where the comp is biglaw or similar so I'm wondering why anyone chooses to stay on the law firm side. In-house just seems so much better lifestyle wise.

Does a disproportionate number of funds lawyers just want to be partner? Am I the only one seeing this?

Why not ask some of them? (serious question)

[synergy]

I'm a junior-midlevel funds associate and am wondering why anyone ever stays in funds in biglaw instead of going in-house. I see a lot of pretty senior and super senior funds associates at mine and other firms. Could be my bias but it seems like funds lawyers stick around to year 6/7/8 much more frequently than m&a or other corporate practice groups.

Meanwhile, I'm starting to get a ton of recruiters spam me about in-house funds roles where the comp is biglaw or similar so I'm wondering why anyone chooses to stay on the law firm side. In-house just seems so much better lifestyle wise.

Does a disproportionate number of funds lawyers just want to be partner? Am I the only one seeing this?

Why not ask some of them? (serious question)

Fair question, I thought about that myself. I guess my fear is the message it can convey to my bosses (essentially) - i.e. me essentially asking why they stick around considering this job sucks and there are better options.

[Anonymous User]

Midlevel funds lawyer here. I suspect it’s a combination of things. Funds is pretty humane and while by no means 9-5, you have more flexibility, especially at senior levels, to choose which 10-12 hours of the day you work. 8 am to 6 or 7 pm isn’t too bad for the money.

Second, there’s sort of a gap in comp at the mid-senior levels if you aren’t getting a CCO/GC role somewhere that pays $500k or up. At 3rd-5th year you can pretty much expect Biglaw market for in-house jobs or slightly less. But not a lot of places are looking for 7th and 8th years to slot in as AGC being paid 450k in total comp. You’re still looking at positions paying $250k base where they are happy to take a 4th year. So unless you can snag a senior role somewhere, you’re taking a pay cut. Those senior roles are rare and come through networking, rarely through recruiters.

[Anonymous User]

I am a late midlevel funds associate at a V10 (so posting anon). I think it probably depends on the associate you ask, but I would guess some or all of the below factors come into play:

—Private funds (and I assume you are talking about private funds) is a practice that requires a good bit of regulatory knowledge. Unlike, say, capital markets—which is pretty rote work—even a 6th or 7th year associate is constantly learning new stuff. That makes the job more interesting, which can help with burn out. I also think a lot of funds associates may not feel as confident that they have “mastered” the practice area as much as a less senior capital markets or M&A associate has, which can compel them to stay put.

—Private funds tends to be more predictable hours-wise than, say, M&A. That helps tremendously.

—Relatedly, many of the most desirable in-house jobs don’t represent the marked improvement in lifestyle you see for someone making the jump from M&A to an in-house job.

—also, as noted above, while in-house funds jobs are known for paying well, most wouldn’t pay as much as a 6th or 7th year associate would otherwise make (which, in the latter case, would I believe be approaching $500k this year with fall bonuses).

[Stevenmilbe]

Are in house opportunities for funds associates limited to going in house at a PE fund? Has anyone made the jump from funds --> GC role?

[Anonymous User]

Anecdotally, I've heard that the lifestyle for Biglaw funds work tends to be more predictable and sustainable than M&A or other corporate groups (e.g., a 60-65 billable hour week could conceivably be worked between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. M-F with only the occasional later night and only a couple hours of work on the typical weekend). Much easier to get comfortable with that sort of lifestyle, if true.

As a midlevel funds associate, this is the answer.

2000 hours isn't so bad when the majority of your weeks are between 40-50 hrs.

[synergy]

Out of curiosity, can I ask what kind of funds practice/law firm/market you are at? Are you really only billing 2000 hours a year? I’ve been annualizing 2400 past few years and that’s what’s driving my original question.

Anecdotally, I've heard that the lifestyle for Biglaw funds work tends to be more predictable and sustainable than M&A or other corporate groups (e.g., a 60-65 billable hour week could conceivably be worked between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. M-F with only the occasional later night and only a couple hours of work on the typical weekend). Much easier to get comfortable with that sort of lifestyle, if true.

As a midlevel funds associate, this is the answer.

2000 hours isn't so bad when the majority of your weeks are between 40-50 hrs.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard Funds in-house positions are generally limited geographically to NYC. Have you found this to be the case?

[veers]

Out of curiosity, can I ask what kind of funds practice/law firm/market you are at? Are you really only billing 2000 hours a year? I’ve been annualizing 2400 past few years and that’s what’s driving my original question.

Anecdotally, I've heard that the lifestyle for Biglaw funds work tends to be more predictable and sustainable than M&A or other corporate groups (e.g., a 60-65 billable hour week could conceivably be worked between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. M-F with only the occasional later night and only a couple hours of work on the typical weekend). Much easier to get comfortable with that sort of lifestyle, if true.

As a midlevel funds associate, this is the answer.

2000 hours isn't so bad when the majority of your weeks are between 40-50 hrs.

Billing 2400 in funds means that either you are gunning for partner or you are doing it wrong. Lots of V10 and down NYC shops that are happy for associates to bill 2100 (though, of course, the onus is on you to turn down work and control your hours, which is definitely doable but will deep six any chance at partner and give you a mediocre reputation). In funds, as a rule and unlike M&A, mediocre and unmotivated associates aren't getting staffed as aggressively and can definitely control hours to a reasonable extent (usually you will have some kind of weekly availability email where you estimate your hours for the next week, and the mediocre associates consistently overestimate, within reason, their time commitments for the following week). Another trick is to overestimate how long it will take you to do specific projects that you get from a partner, and then only work 4-5 hours a day and finish at leisurely pace (rather than working 10 hours a day, finishing early, sending to the partner, and offering yourself up for additional work). These are all good tactics if your goal is to just work as little as possible, but you do need to also take into account the significant reputational damage. That being said, definitely have seen people cruise to 8th year never billing more than 2200, and some even making counsel that way.

As far as why people don't go in house, vast majority of the in house fund jobs are kind of sucky, basically doing the same grind for pretty much the same money and not a lot of upward mobility. These are not the GC exists you get in M&A.

[Goceltics25]

Funds work seems to be one of the best practices for work/life given the predictability. So, what are some of the downsides of funds work, all these descriptions seem too good to be true

[veers]

Funds work seems to be one of the best practices for work/life given the predictability. So, what are some of the downsides of funds work, all these descriptions seem too good to be true

Probably the biggest is that the work is boring, the documents are long and highly technical and clients can't really be bothered to care to read them, and you don't really build relationships with cooler people at your clients. You end up as some mind numbingly bored drone putting together 150 page PPMs for very uptight and boring partners wishing you had done something more purposeful with your life, and constantly thinking about quitting only to realize that in house is basically the same boring gig for less money.

So while the lifestyle is a big plus, the job itself is pretty listless unless you go and build a book.

[breadlaw]

I am also interested in all of these plus sides of funds for hours/etc--is this for transactional or regulatory? Or both? Can anyone give some insight on the split between the two for hours/lifestyle? It really does seem like people seem to stay longer in funds, so I am so interested as to why.