Corporate work? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am a lowly 1l interviewing with some firms in nyc, and have to decide if I want to do corporate or litigation. How much of corporate work is really just paper-pushing (specifically interested in m&a)? Do you really get shit on by junior bankers? There are so many posts saying that even senior m&a partners are just doing clerical work and playing second fiddle to bankers. I can’t tell if this is actually true or people are just complaining. I am interested in m&a/securities, but I can’t stand the idea of some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate (pretty shallow I know, but I that’s how I am). Will I better off choosing litigation?

[Anonymous User]

I am a lowly 1l interviewing with some firms in nyc, and have to decide if I want to do corporate or litigation. How much of corporate work is really just paper-pushing (specifically interested in m&a)? Do you really get shit on by junior bankers? There are so many posts saying that even senior m&a partners are just doing clerical work and playing second fiddle to bankers. I can’t tell if this is actually true or people are just complaining. I am interested in m&a/securities, but I can’t stand the idea of some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate (pretty shallow I know, but I that’s how I am). Will I better off choosing litigation?

You're in a client service industry. Most of the time those clients are respectful, professional, and polite. But in corporate, you're dealing with tight and moving deadlines, albeit often arbitrary ones, and your clients are paying pretty crazy rates for your services, so there will often be demands that will be unpleasant or annoying to deal with. It's not about "some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate," it's about your client wanting something from their outside counsel and wanting it done a certain way and in a certain timeframe. I will say, in my experience, you're usually not dealing directly with analysts/associates, usually higher up folks, but it depends.

If you don't like that, and it's not for everyone, litigation will generally (though by no means always) have longer deadlines and less constant contact with clients.

As for paper pushing, the lower you are in the food chain, the more it resembles paper pushing, the higher up you get the more you'll be involved in substantive issues, negotiations, structuring, etc.

[Anonymous User]

I am a lowly 1l interviewing with some firms in nyc, and have to decide if I want to do corporate or litigation. How much of corporate work is really just paper-pushing (specifically interested in m&a)? Do you really get shit on by junior bankers? There are so many posts saying that even senior m&a partners are just doing clerical work and playing second fiddle to bankers. I can’t tell if this is actually true or people are just complaining. I am interested in m&a/securities, but I can’t stand the idea of some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate (pretty shallow I know, but I that’s how I am). Will I better off choosing litigation?

You're in a client service industry. Most of the time those clients are respectful, professional, and polite. But in corporate, you're dealing with tight and moving deadlines, albeit often arbitrary ones, and your clients are paying pretty crazy rates for your services, so there will often be demands that will be unpleasant or annoying to deal with. It's not about "some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate," it's about your client wanting something from their outside counsel and wanting it done a certain way and in a certain timeframe. I will say, in my experience, you're usually not dealing directly with analysts/associates, usually higher up folks, but it depends.

If you don't like that, and it's not for everyone, litigation will generally (though by no means always) have longer deadlines and less constant contact with clients.

As for paper pushing, the lower you are in the food chain, the more it resembles paper pushing, the higher up you get the more you'll be involved in substantive issues, negotiations, structuring, etc.

Not op, but could you maybe speak to the tls consensus that most of important deal terms are already decided by clients, bankers, and consultants? Isn’t it true that lawyers rarely get involved in “substantive issues, negotiations, structuring”?

[Anonymous User]

I am a lowly 1l interviewing with some firms in nyc, and have to decide if I want to do corporate or litigation. How much of corporate work is really just paper-pushing (specifically interested in m&a)? Do you really get shit on by junior bankers? There are so many posts saying that even senior m&a partners are just doing clerical work and playing second fiddle to bankers. I can’t tell if this is actually true or people are just complaining. I am interested in m&a/securities, but I can’t stand the idea of some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate (pretty shallow I know, but I that’s how I am). Will I better off choosing litigation?

You're in a client service industry. Most of the time those clients are respectful, professional, and polite. But in corporate, you're dealing with tight and moving deadlines, albeit often arbitrary ones, and your clients are paying pretty crazy rates for your services, so there will often be demands that will be unpleasant or annoying to deal with. It's not about "some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate," it's about your client wanting something from their outside counsel and wanting it done a certain way and in a certain timeframe. I will say, in my experience, you're usually not dealing directly with analysts/associates, usually higher up folks, but it depends.

If you don't like that, and it's not for everyone, litigation will generally (though by no means always) have longer deadlines and less constant contact with clients.

As for paper pushing, the lower you are in the food chain, the more it resembles paper pushing, the higher up you get the more you'll be involved in substantive issues, negotiations, structuring, etc.

Not op, but could you maybe speak to the tls consensus that most of important deal terms are already decided by clients, bankers, and consultants? Isn’t it true that lawyers rarely get involved in “substantive issues, negotiations, structuring”?

This is a meme. Anyone who actually believes this either has had no experience at the higher end of things or is a genuinely terrible lawyer.

More often than not, the people at the client working with you will view you as a partner in getting things done. Again, I can't speak for everyone's experiences but this myopic view that your clients default to treating their legal with disdain runs completely contrary to my experiences, having been in the industry for a long time now.

[Anonymous User]

I am a lowly 1l interviewing with some firms in nyc, and have to decide if I want to do corporate or litigation. How much of corporate work is really just paper-pushing (specifically interested in m&a)? Do you really get shit on by junior bankers? There are so many posts saying that even senior m&a partners are just doing clerical work and playing second fiddle to bankers. I can’t tell if this is actually true or people are just complaining. I am interested in m&a/securities, but I can’t stand the idea of some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate (pretty shallow I know, but I that’s how I am). Will I better off choosing litigation?

You're in a client service industry. Most of the time those clients are respectful, professional, and polite. But in corporate, you're dealing with tight and moving deadlines, albeit often arbitrary ones, and your clients are paying pretty crazy rates for your services, so there will often be demands that will be unpleasant or annoying to deal with. It's not about "some 20 year old ib/pe analysts treating me like I am their subordinate," it's about your client wanting something from their outside counsel and wanting it done a certain way and in a certain timeframe. I will say, in my experience, you're usually not dealing directly with analysts/associates, usually higher up folks, but it depends.

If you don't like that, and it's not for everyone, litigation will generally (though by no means always) have longer deadlines and less constant contact with clients.

As for paper pushing, the lower you are in the food chain, the more it resembles paper pushing, the higher up you get the more you'll be involved in substantive issues, negotiations, structuring, etc.

Not op, but could you maybe speak to the tls consensus that most of important deal terms are already decided by clients, bankers, and consultants? Isn’t it true that lawyers rarely get involved in “substantive issues, negotiations, structuring”?

If by “most important deal terms” you mean how much money Party A will pay Party B, then yes, the clients will handle that without needing the lawyers. Most other things on the term sheet will have at least some attorney input, even if it’s just the partners advising what is or isn’t market for various terms.

[Anonymous User]

My views:

1. I’ve never been shit on by a banker. Most of them you get a pretty good relationship with throughout the course of the deal. The senior banker is doing all the fun stuff - but there are 5 bankers below that person doing waterfalls, running diligence spreadsheets, populating a data room, etc. Biggest issues with bankers are those that want to collect a fee and don’t want to do any work after they have a purchase price. But for most of them, their life isn’t glorious either.

2. “Pushing paper” or “papering the deal” is just the typical self hatred of TLS lawyers. Some deals are like that if there are no significant obstacles and everyone is really motivated to get shit done. Some deals are complex as hell and there are real dollar and cents involved in how a deal is structured and deals are sometimes on the verge of falling apart over legal issues. Had a $2B deal fall apart because neither could decide on post-closing risk of misclassification of employees in an Uber like company. Those are often decided between joint calls of client, banker and lawyer and lawyers are carrying a lot of weight in those discussions

[Anonymous User]

These posts are extremely helpful.