Best NY Lit for exit to investing Forum

[Anonymous User]

YSH student with background in investing, looking to be in NY for personal reasons. Can't get into why I wouldn't want to do transactional / corporate without too many identifying details, but pretty much dead set on litigating (commercial or restructuring within litigation are fine though). Looking to exit to an investing role or even b-school after a few years.

So I know there's plenty of breakdown of the top NY lit shops in general, but how would people rate the top options given that background and goals? Assume white collar lit would be de-emphasized, securities lit in the middle (touches finance, but not in a way that interacts with business strategy as much), restructuring above that, and commercial lit the most relevant? Could be way off base but let me know thoughts.

[Anonymous User]

This just... doesn't make any sense. If you have the necessary background to go to e.g., a fund of some kind, you should be targeting that now. In lieu of that, you should be looking at transactional roles.

You will likely actively diminish if not outright kill your chances of going to something like a fund if you do some weird dalliance into securities lit or whatever (ETA: that is, in an investment role. Compliance is a different kettle of fish.) You will probably come off as flighty, and it seems like that might be accurate based on the rather odd restrictions you're placing on yourself here. Securities lit is investment-adjacent like white collar defense is adjacent to running a company. They are factually intertwined, but they require completely different skillsets and experience.

There is definitely a path through RX, but not really through the lit practices. You'd want to be at, among others, DPW, PW, and Milbank, but the work you'll do there that could set you up for a transition into an investment role is fundamentally transactional.

[Anonymous User]

This just... doesn't make any sense. If you have the necessary background to go to e.g., a fund of some kind, you should be targeting that now. In lieu of that, you should be looking at transactional roles.

You will likely actively diminish if not outright kill your chances of going to something like a fund if you do some weird dalliance into securities lit or whatever (ETA: that is, in an investment role. Compliance is a different kettle of fish.) You will probably come off as flighty, and it seems like that might be accurate based on the rather odd restrictions you're placing on yourself here. Securities lit is investment-adjacent like white collar defense is adjacent to running a company. They are factually intertwined, but they require completely different skillsets and experience.

There is definitely a path through RX, but not really through the lit practices. You'd want to be at, among others, DPW, PW, and Milbank, but the work you'll do there that could set you up for a transition into an investment role is fundamentally transactional.

Agree 100% with this post. If you want to do investing, why on earth would you do litigation? If you want to go to business school, why are you in law school? In fact, out of HYS or even CCN, you could go straight into investing to begin with if that's what you really wanted to do. Why waste a few years doing something you know you don't want to do?

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. Hearing this feedback loud and clear. How about if this lit is for an SA but with a desire to exit to investing FT (where many more programs hire post-grad than offer internships)?

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. Hearing this feedback loud and clear. How about if this lit is for an SA but with a desire to exit to investing FT (where many more programs hire post-grad than offer internships)?

What do you mean by investing? Do you mean investment banking? If so, getting a summer associate job at a bank is the way to go.

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. Hearing this feedback loud and clear. How about if this lit is for an SA but with a desire to exit to investing FT (where many more programs hire post-grad than offer internships)?

Different anon. This still doesn't make sense. I'm at another HYS school - I know a whopping 2 people who transitioned from lit to investing and both made the move after clerking for SCOTUS. Just go straight into investing if that's what you want to do.

[chingwoo]

YSH student with background in investing, looking to be in NY for personal reasons. Can't get into why I wouldn't want to do transactional / corporate without too many identifying details, but pretty much dead set on litigating (commercial or restructuring within litigation are fine though). Looking to exit to an investing role or even b-school after a few years.

So I know there's plenty of breakdown of the top NY lit shops in general, but how would people rate the top options given that background and goals? Assume white collar lit would be de-emphasized, securities lit in the middle (touches finance, but not in a way that interacts with business strategy as much), restructuring above that, and commercial lit the most relevant? Could be way off base but let me know thoughts.

Best avenue here is actually IP Lit or restructuring. If you do IP Lit with a hard finance background, you will be very well positioned for lit finance and restructuring is obvious.

[HelloWorld919]

I'm really curious how one can be so intent on a finance/investing role, yet so opposed to the closest thing to that in law (transactional work).

OP, there is no lit (or legal in general) "path" to take toward an investing role because any path taken would still require so much luck/circumstance such that planning is meaningless.

You're much better off using your hard finance background and networking in order to secure a finance gig out of law school or just going for an MBA right away. Why work in litigation for a few years when you've already expressed that it's not your end goal and it is clear that this type of work (or any legal work) doesn't make you that much more desirable for the final role you seek.

[Anonymous User]

I'm really curious how one can be so intent on a finance/investing role, yet so opposed to the closest thing to that in law (transactional work).

OP, there is no lit (or legal in general) "path" to take toward an investing role because any path taken would still require so much luck/circumstance such that planning is meaningless.

You're much better off using your hard finance background and networking in order to secure a finance gig out of law school or just going for an MBA right away. Why work in litigation for a few years when you've already expressed that it's not your end goal and it is clear that this type of work (or any legal work) doesn't make you that much more desirable for the final role you seek.

OP. Frankly the big thing for me is I just don’t buy, from what I’ve heard, that doing transactional M&A as a junior forces you to think about business issues in a way that’s meaningful. Sure, you “touch” every part of the business by checking that dataroom items match in diligence, and you’re executing deal terms by crafting docs, but I am not persuaded that anything below a midlevel is thinking about the client strategically in any meaningful way. Let me know if that’s totally off base or if there are firms that are an exception to that.

So if that’s the case, I just want to do the most intellectually stimulating kind of work and sacrifice some relatedness without going totally far afield. That’s why I asked for what subcategories of lit might best help me achieve those goals.

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. Hearing this feedback loud and clear. How about if this lit is for an SA but with a desire to exit to investing FT (where many more programs hire post-grad than offer internships)?

Different anon. This still doesn't make sense. I'm at another HYS school - I know a whopping 2 people who transitioned from lit to investing and both made the move after clerking for SCOTUS. Just go straight into investing if that's what you want to do.

I mean...drop the LinkedIns and let a boy/girl dream

[nixy]

OP. Frankly the big thing for me is I just don’t buy, from what I’ve heard, that doing transactional M&A as a junior forces you to think about business issues in a way that’s meaningful. Sure, you “touch” every part of the business by checking that dataroom items match in diligence, and you’re executing deal terms by crafting docs, but I am not persuaded that anything below a midlevel is thinking about the client strategically in any meaningful way. Let me know if that’s totally off base or if there are firms that are an exception to that.

So if that’s the case, I just want to do the most intellectually stimulating kind of work and sacrifice some relatedness without going totally far afield. That’s why I asked for what subcategories of lit might best help me achieve those goals.

Then why aren't you trying to go straight to investing? Why do lit at all?

[Anonymous User]

This thread is similar to someone being like "I'm currently an MBA student going to summer at a bulge bracket. Which bank would be best for me to do litigation?"

[Anonymous User]

OP. Frankly the big thing for me is I just don’t buy, from what I’ve heard, that doing transactional M&A as a junior forces you to think about business issues in a way that’s meaningful. Sure, you “touch” every part of the business by checking that dataroom items match in diligence, and you’re executing deal terms by crafting docs, but I am not persuaded that anything below a midlevel is thinking about the client strategically in any meaningful way. Let me know if that’s totally off base or if there are firms that are an exception to that.

So if that’s the case, I just want to do the most intellectually stimulating kind of work and sacrifice some relatedness without going totally far afield. That’s why I asked for what subcategories of lit might best help me achieve those goals.

You are in for a rude awakening if you think doing doc review for securities class actions "forces you to think about business issues in a way that’s meaningful."

I think one of the glaring issues here is that you don't really seem to understand what litigators actually do.

I'm not just saying this to be mean; FWIW I had similar misconceptions about how doing securities lit could set you up for an investing role when I was a 1L. As I quickly learned, this just isn't a thing. The two things actually have very little to do with one another.

To the extent that people are able to make it happen, they tend to be the type of person (like the SCOTUS clerks mentioned elsewhere) that have the clout to waltz into pretty much any job they want. Chances are you aren't one of those people. Frankly, if you were, you wouldn't need to ask this question.

Again, not saying that to be mean. I'm not one of those people either.

You should definitely look into the lit finance thing, though. I didn't think about that, and it sounds like it might be up your alley. I would consider regulatory risk, though.

[Anonymous User]

OP. Frankly the big thing for me is I just don’t buy, from what I’ve heard, that doing transactional M&A as a junior forces you to think about business issues in a way that’s meaningful. Sure, you “touch” every part of the business by checking that dataroom items match in diligence, and you’re executing deal terms by crafting docs, but I am not persuaded that anything below a midlevel is thinking about the client strategically in any meaningful way. Let me know if that’s totally off base or if there are firms that are an exception to that.

So if that’s the case, I just want to do the most intellectually stimulating kind of work and sacrifice some relatedness without going totally far afield. That’s why I asked for what subcategories of lit might best help me achieve those goals.

You are in for a rude awakening if you think doing doc review for securities class actions "forces you to think about business issues in a way that’s meaningful."

I think one of the glaring issues here is that you don't really seem to understand what litigators actually do.

I'm not just saying this to be mean; FWIW I had similar misconceptions about how doing securities lit could set you up for an investing role when I was a 1L. As I quickly learned, this just isn't a thing. The two things actually have very little to do with one another.

To the extent that people are able to make it happen, they tend to be the type of person (like the SCOTUS clerks mentioned elsewhere) that have the clout to waltz into pretty much any job they want. Chances are you aren't one of those people. Frankly, if you were, you wouldn't need to ask this question.

Again, not saying that to be mean. I'm not one of those people either.

You should definitely look into the lit finance thing, though. I didn't think about that, and it sounds like it might be up your alley. I would consider regulatory risk, though.

OP. Ok I respect this take. Let me rephrase then: what kind of litigation would best expose me to issues of business strategy and management? Would it do so more than M&A doc / diligence review at the junior level?

I find it odd that you and another poster are focused on securities lit when it's one of the buckets I laid out in the OP as probably not that relevant or helpful.

[Anonymous User]

Know people who have made these moves from places like Paul Weiss, Akin, and Milbank. Creditor side restructuring is what you want to do. Your clients will be investors and therefore you will need to learn how to think from their point of view. As others have pointed out it will be an extremely difficult transition regardless, but these shops will give you your best shot and with pre-law school finance experience you may get opportunities with hustle.

Alternative is doing traditional lit and with aim to get into litigation finance, though not sure you couldn’t get there from creditor side restructuring too

[Anonymous User]

OP. Ok I respect this take. Let me rephrase then: what kind of litigation would best expose me to issues of business strategy and management? Would it do so more than M&A doc / diligence review at the junior level?

I find it odd that you and another poster are focused on securities lit when it's one of the buckets I laid out in the OP as probably not that relevant or helpful.

This is, in an academic sense, what is litigated in DE Chancery Court, but as a practical reality what you're generally litigating is stuff like flaws in an M&A deal that has already happened. I don't think this really transfers to proactively making deals. You need a grasp of valuation, so I suppose that's applicable, but again if that's what you want to do you should be targeting a finance route right out of the gate. Corporate litigators generally aren't, like, making their own DCF models or anything like that, they just have to be fluent in the language so they can argue it.

I zeroed in on securities lit because that was the area I mistakenly thought would provide a gateway into finance when I was a 1L. But you can substitute virtually any other area of litigation in and the message is the same (with one quasi-exception discussed below): what you do as a litigator, e.g. taking depos, discovery, writing memos and briefs, has virtually no transferability to an investing role.

Know people who have made these moves from places like Paul Weiss, Akin, and Milbank. Creditor side restructuring is what you want to do. Your clients will be investors and therefore you will need to learn how to think from their point of view. As others have pointed out it will be an extremely difficult transition regardless, but these shops will give you your best shot and with pre-law school finance experience you will have options.

Alternative is doing transitions lit and with aim to get into litigation finance, though not sure you couldn’t get there from creditor side restructuring too

Restructuring in general is what you should be targeting, OP. It is more or less the only practice area that truly fuses litigation and transactional work, and it will allow you to go more in either direction if you find that you have a preference. It is the only area of "litigation" (again, it is not strictly or even predominantly litigious) that has actual transferability to an investment role.

[Anonymous User]

Know people who have made these moves from places like Paul Weiss, Akin, and Milbank.

This anon probably wasn’t trying to be exhaustive, but I’d add DPW too. Excellent creditor side practice (albeit slightly more focused on bank reps).

[Anonymous User]

Just by way of background: I'm in restructuring now, interned at IB and multi-strategy hfs in college, and worked for a few different MDs / portfolio managers who went to law school or even have practiced at big law. So I'm speaking from first hand experience.

Besides restructuring, activism defense, litigation financing, and event driven are three viable options.

Activism defense is similar to restructuring: the entire process is legally driven, and with a good knowledge of the proxy access and corporate governance strategies you may be able to find a seat at an activist hedge fund. The caveat here is activist hedge funds are incredibly hard to get into (Icahn enterprises, pershing square, etc.), arguably the hardest jobs to get in finance besides getting a quant position at Citadel.

Litigation financing is pretty self-explanatory and may be directly on point for your inspiration of getting into general litigation (i.e. not just litigations arising out of deals that go south).

Event driven strategies in your scenario will pretty much be just public M&A lit: based on your experience on litigating these M&A issues and contracts you will build a better sense of whether an announced M&A deal will fall through and arbitrage accordingly. There may also be alpha from analyzing stocks of companies that are undergoing shareholder litigation.

[california12345]

if you want to exit into a bank, finance, or really any kind of corporate environment, do not do litigation. do transactional. sure it is possible (as in, it is not completely impossible) to exit from litigation to in-house, but it is 1000x easier to explain how your experience working on financing and M&A transactions for banks/companies has prepared you for your in house experience.

[Anonymous User]

I exited big law to a business side role with a capital provider.

The poster above who mentioned credit side restructuring gave you great advice. What you’re trying to do is going to be hard enough as it is. Coming from lit is going to be even harder.

Some things to think about:

To transition with any kind of seniority, you’ll almost certainly need to be at least a very senior associate. You’ll also need to be good enough that making partner is a lock at your law firm ... which will place strong pressure on you to remain in place. Not only that, once you’ve practiced law for that long leaving a legal mindset behind will be extremely difficult.

If you transition as a junior associate, you’ll basically need to start at the bottom on the finance side. Your value adds will be stylistic—attention to detail, responsiveness and other skills you’ll learn in any big law practice group. The only real substantive legal experience that may be of value is understanding corporate formalities. You should not expect that your legal experience following less than 5 years of big law will be a value add or even a driving force to you making the type of transition you are contemplating.

You probably already know this, but from where you sit right now, your absolute best shot at getting into a finance role is converting into your school’s JD/MBA program and going through the MBA interview process (even better if you are at H or S). Your second best shot is to finish out the JD and go straight to entry level finance positions and hope to eventually transition to buy side. The worst odds are trying to practice law and then transition with the lit background making the odds even worse because transactional work will give you the networking opportunities that might persuade someone on the business side to take a chance on you. Even with restructuring and activist work, a lit background won’t give you volume of networking opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

For those recommending creditor-side rx as opposed to debtor, is that purely for networking purposes? It seems like debtor work would have better visibility into strategy, interaction with management, etc.

[RX_distressed]

For those recommending creditor-side rx as opposed to debtor, is that purely for networking purposes? It seems like debtor work would have better visibility into strategy, interaction with management, etc.

if you want to make a transition to sellside (i.e. banking), maybe debtor/creditor wouldn't really matter (in the sense that they don't really care) but if you're thinking about buyside (i.e. investing) creditor side rep in rx gives you an understanding of what solution distressed credit HFs are looking for. Interaction with management doesn't really do a value-add from the investor's point of view.

[Anonymous User]

The one investing role that I personally know of litigators going into is lit financing at major investment firms, like DE Shaw. For that, any classic litigation experience fits, since you're just evaluating the likelihood that claims will succeed and are worth the firm's investment. This is, of course, quite specialized investing.

With your background, summering at WLRK may be a good option. The litigation there is very transaction-adjacent. WLRK also has a growing group - restructuring and finance - within which is a subgroup of litigators.