Top Law Schools

This is probably too broad of a question, but I was wondering whether EC/VC exit options tend to be primarily in early-stage companies and VC firms, or are EC/VC lawyers also competitive for corporate counsel type roles at late-stage private companies and/or FAANG-type public tech companies? Does it depend on whether EC/VC lawyers are also getting substantive experience in M&A and Cap Markets, rather than just "pure" EC/VC work?

It’s hard to do just EC/VC work. We take discounts on work and the work is mostly forms and standardized docs. Occasionally you’ll have an expensive late stage round, but the fees on a typical Series B round aren’t impressive.

So almost all attorneys do capital markers and/or M&A work. If you do the Series A-C and then can’t do the M&A deal when the company gets sold, you’re not really going to be profitable to the firm. Also, because it’s standardized work, if you can’t do M&A or cap markets, you’re basically a dime a dozen. Most breathing lawyers can redline docs against the last round docs and negotiate the 10 points that may arise.

Which is to say that yes, a lot of attorneys in this space go in house at FAANG or similar companies because you’re doing more than just typical Series A docs. I would expect that if all you’re doing is early stage work, exit options are going to be pretty limited.

It seems some EC/VC practices tend to skew more early-stage (Gunderson, maybe Orrick?). Do you think the exit options are therefore more limited from those practices than from Cooley or WSGR? Perhaps that is a mistaken impression though.

I was also under the impression that in addition to handling financings, EC attorneys handled a multitude of other "general outside counsel" types tasks. Is the level of involvement in those tasks not sufficient to translate well into an in-house role at a tech company?

SamuelDanforth wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:00 pm

It seems some EC/VC practices tend to skew more early-stage (Gunderson, maybe Orrick?). Do you think the exit options are therefore more limited from those practices than from Cooley or WSGR? Perhaps that is a mistaken impression though.

I was also under the impression that in addition to handling financings, EC attorneys handled a multitude of other "general outside counsel" types tasks. Is the level of involvement in those tasks not sufficient to translate well into an in-house role at a tech company?

Gunderson does tend to skew early stage. They will still have a lot of M&A or cap market experience though, and having a ton of early stage clients is more potential landing spots in house. I would guess Gunderson probably puts more in startups and less in FAANG than WSGR, but not sure it is a huge meaningful difference. WSGR tends to skew large public co, so I bet they have more placements there, e.g., Salesforce M&A counsel.

As far as other work you do, it depends. If you’re doing more commercial work for startups (reviewing MSAs, OEM agreements, etc.) - that is a huge leg up for going in house. Most big tech firms have separate groups that do most of this work though, so if you’re doing Series Alphabet rounds, you’re probably not touching these unless you really seek it out. You also kind of serve as general counsel for clients. Answering easy employment, IP, benefits and tax issues as they come up, and farming out harder questions to specialists. That is probably a good skill set to have to be a GC, but it’s probably less sellable than the tech licensing type of work I described.

Hope this helps.

Thank you, that is helpful.