Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=309741
M&A is generally better for in-house. Most companies are not doing capital markets transactions more than a couple times a year, but most large companies have a constant churn of M&A deals (or proposed deals).
I think that's probably true in normal times but the SPAC boom (even though it's dying down) has made it a bit funky right now. As someone who just wrapped an in-house search I was seeing significantly more listings from newly public companies (or companies that think they're likely SPAC targets) looking for in-house cap m counsel (not for deal work but for SEC / exchange compliance). Lots of them seem to be targeting associates in the 4-7 year range.
Yes, if your cap m practice includes exchange act reporting you can very easily find a job, even relatively junior. If you just do offerings and you can't BS knowledge of reporting requirements, good luck.thisisme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:34 pmI think that's probably true in normal times but the SPAC boom (even though it's dying down) has made it a bit funky right now. As someone who just wrapped an in-house search I was seeing significantly more listings from newly public companies (or companies that think they're likely SPAC targets) looking for in-house cap m counsel (not for deal work but for SEC / exchange compliance). Lots of them seem to be targeting associates in the 4-7 year range.
Yeah, things are a bit funky now, but the OP wouldn't be in a position to go in house for another 5 years or so. Plus, even now, I'd bet big money there are numerically a lot more M&A openings.thisisme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:34 pmI think that's probably true in normal times but the SPAC boom (even though it's dying down) has made it a bit funky right now. As someone who just wrapped an in-house search I was seeing significantly more listings from newly public companies (or companies that think they're likely SPAC targets) looking for in-house cap m counsel (not for deal work but for SEC / exchange compliance). Lots of them seem to be targeting associates in the 4-7 year range.
I suspect you're still underestimating the number of '34 Act roles out there though. Not a terribly scientific method, but goinhouse has about twice as many postings tagged for securities than it does for M&A, for example. Doing M&A at a firm may be a better path to finding in-house jobs in general, but that doesn't mean there are more M&A focused in-house gigs, which was the question posed by the thread topic; plenty M&A associates will get general corporates in-house gigs rather than M&A-specific in-house gigs. The number of companies that have a sizeable enough volume of M&A work to have a dedicated in-house role for it (rather than farming out work to outside counsel, supervised by general corporates attorneys) is smaller than the number of public companies, and '34 Act work doesn't really require outside counsel input unless there's some kind of issue or you're newly public and want to make sure everything is perfect, so it's well suited for hiring some fourth or fifth year from a generic biglaw firm to handle full time.nealric wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:40 pmYeah, things are a bit funky now, but the OP wouldn't be in a position to go in house for another 5 years or so. Plus, even now, I'd bet big money there are numerically a lot more M&A openings.thisisme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:34 pmI think that's probably true in normal times but the SPAC boom (even though it's dying down) has made it a bit funky right now. As someone who just wrapped an in-house search I was seeing significantly more listings from newly public companies (or companies that think they're likely SPAC targets) looking for in-house cap m counsel (not for deal work but for SEC / exchange compliance). Lots of them seem to be targeting associates in the 4-7 year range.
I'd caution about choosing a practice area because it's hot today. Those sorts of things can turn on a dime.
To share a slightly different perspective: it's true that all public companies need a cap markets lawyer, but each company usually only needs one, or two at most. Whereas both public and private companies have a need for M&A lawyers, and not just for M&A work, but also general corporate/commercial contracts/tech transactions, etc. So typically more than just a few per company. So I'd like to think that M&A has a broader exit in house than cap markets (despite the fact that I am a cap markets in house lawyer myself...)Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:33 pmI suspect you're still underestimating the number of '34 Act roles out there though. Not a terribly scientific method, but goinhouse has about twice as many postings tagged for securities than it does for M&A, for example. Doing M&A at a firm may be a better path to finding in-house jobs in general, but that doesn't mean there are more M&A focused in-house gigs, which was the question posed by the thread topic; plenty M&A associates will get general corporates in-house gigs rather than M&A-specific in-house gigs. The number of companies that have a sizeable enough volume of M&A work to have a dedicated in-house role for it (rather than farming out work to outside counsel, supervised by general corporates attorneys) is smaller than the number of public companies, and '34 Act work doesn't really require outside counsel input unless there's some kind of issue or you're newly public and want to make sure everything is perfect, so it's well suited for hiring some fourth or fifth year from a generic biglaw firm to handle full time.nealric wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:40 pmYeah, things are a bit funky now, but the OP wouldn't be in a position to go in house for another 5 years or so. Plus, even now, I'd bet big money there are numerically a lot more M&A openings.thisisme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:34 pmI think that's probably true in normal times but the SPAC boom (even though it's dying down) has made it a bit funky right now. As someone who just wrapped an in-house search I was seeing significantly more listings from newly public companies (or companies that think they're likely SPAC targets) looking for in-house cap m counsel (not for deal work but for SEC / exchange compliance). Lots of them seem to be targeting associates in the 4-7 year range.
I'd caution about choosing a practice area because it's hot today. Those sorts of things can turn on a dime.
Right, no argument from me that M&A can set you up for a general transactional/corporate in-house role as well or better than cap markets. I was viewing the discussion through the lens of the OP, which was asking about doing M&A or cap markets work specifically at an in-house position.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:24 amTo share a slightly different perspective: it's true that all public companies need a cap markets lawyer, but each company usually only needs one, or two at most. Whereas both public and private companies have a need for M&A lawyers, and not just for M&A work, but also general corporate/commercial contracts/tech transactions, etc. So typically more than just a few per company. So I'd like to think that M&A has a broader exit in house than cap markets (despite the fact that I am a cap markets in house lawyer myself...)Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:33 pmI suspect you're still underestimating the number of '34 Act roles out there though. Not a terribly scientific method, but goinhouse has about twice as many postings tagged for securities than it does for M&A, for example. Doing M&A at a firm may be a better path to finding in-house jobs in general, but that doesn't mean there are more M&A focused in-house gigs, which was the question posed by the thread topic; plenty M&A associates will get general corporates in-house gigs rather than M&A-specific in-house gigs. The number of companies that have a sizeable enough volume of M&A work to have a dedicated in-house role for it (rather than farming out work to outside counsel, supervised by general corporates attorneys) is smaller than the number of public companies, and '34 Act work doesn't really require outside counsel input unless there's some kind of issue or you're newly public and want to make sure everything is perfect, so it's well suited for hiring some fourth or fifth year from a generic biglaw firm to handle full time.nealric wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:40 pmYeah, things are a bit funky now, but the OP wouldn't be in a position to go in house for another 5 years or so. Plus, even now, I'd bet big money there are numerically a lot more M&A openings.thisisme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:34 pmI think that's probably true in normal times but the SPAC boom (even though it's dying down) has made it a bit funky right now. As someone who just wrapped an in-house search I was seeing significantly more listings from newly public companies (or companies that think they're likely SPAC targets) looking for in-house cap m counsel (not for deal work but for SEC / exchange compliance). Lots of them seem to be targeting associates in the 4-7 year range.
I'd caution about choosing a practice area because it's hot today. Those sorts of things can turn on a dime.
Actual OP here. Would really appreciate any perspective on the above!Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:52 pmI'd appreciate information on:
1. how the work differs from being at a firm,
2. what the hours are like, and
3. what fills the days when there are no active deals.