Most lucrative path starting in corporate at a v10 Forum

[Anonymous User]

You are all correct that M&A affords the widest range of exits, which includes GC track positions. However if we assume that banking or distressed investing is the quickest way to riches with carry $$$, then of course restructuring and LevFin give you the best shot. M&A banking is completely different from M&A lawyering.

Can you (or anyone else) elaborate how M&A lawyering is different from M&A banking? I am still in law school and just wondering if I should try to get into banking right away, but I don’t know enough about either of the two. So, it’s unclear which one will be the right fit for me.

M&A lawyering and banking are completely different. At a basic level, a good way to think about the difference is Word vs. Excel and Powerpoint. As a lawyer, you will be spending almost all of your time in Word. In the context of an M&A deal, this means drafting the merger agreement and other ancillary documents, negotiating with other lawyers about what those docs should say, making sure that everything is documented correctly and signed and organized so that the deal can be closed and effectuated. As a banker, you're building a financial model of the company in Excel, figuring out the company's value, negotiating the business terms of the deal, etc. A lot of this information is presented to the relevant parties in powerpoint presentations.

Because the jobs are so different and it's never really been clear to me why practicing law as an M&A lawyer would really help anyone become an M&A banker. Also, from my perspective (which I think is widely shared), there's just absolutely no question that being an M&A banker is infinitely better than being an M&A lawyer. For one, the pay as a junior banker is substantially better. I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days. The hours are terrible in worse, maybe a little worse in banking but not by much. The work in banking, while not always enjoyable, is more interesting and less tedious. This bears repeating -- there is almost nothing as tedious as the work you will do as a junior corporate lawyer (e.g., making signature pages, marking up hundreds of pages of contracts, going back and forth with the other side on shit that doesn't matter at all, etc.). The work/life balance actually improves in banking as you move up the ladder, unlike in law. Finally, the options from banking are way better -- you can stay in banking and climb the ranks there (generally easier to do than to make partner at a law firm), you can move to the buyside (private equity/hedge funds), you can work in a business role in a variety of corporate contexts. Coming out of M&A law, the most likely exit is an in-house job where you make much less money and don't do particularly glamorous or interesting work (but have a better quality of life).

This is all to say that if you're thinking about M&A banking vs. law, you absolutely should do M&A banking if that is an option. My recommendation would be to get an MBA and recruit directly into investment banking (and skip M&A law practice entirely) if that's something you're serious about.

Appreciate the detailed breakdown. For those of use already in law/just starting and want to transition into M&A Banking, would you recommend starting out in a finance or M&A practice group? And, generally, how much less stable are these banking positions (currently that's the only redeeming part about biglaw to me, that you're pretty safe and advance lockstep)?

[Anonymous User]

You are all correct that M&A affords the widest range of exits, which includes GC track positions. However if we assume that banking or distressed investing is the quickest way to riches with carry $$$, then of course restructuring and LevFin give you the best shot. M&A banking is completely different from M&A lawyering.

Can you (or anyone else) elaborate how M&A lawyering is different from M&A banking? I am still in law school and just wondering if I should try to get into banking right away, but I don’t know enough about either of the two. So, it’s unclear which one will be the right fit for me.

I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days.

Is this really true? Last time I checked post-mba IB associates make similar to biglaw associates.

[Anonymous User]

You are all correct that M&A affords the widest range of exits, which includes GC track positions. However if we assume that banking or distressed investing is the quickest way to riches with carry $$$, then of course restructuring and LevFin give you the best shot. M&A banking is completely different from M&A lawyering.

Can you (or anyone else) elaborate how M&A lawyering is different from M&A banking? I am still in law school and just wondering if I should try to get into banking right away, but I don’t know enough about either of the two. So, it’s unclear which one will be the right fit for me.

I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days.

Is this really true? Last time I checked post-mba IB associates make similar to biglaw associates.

Different poster; I don’t think it’s true either. IB comp is a lot more stratified and variable than BL — high performers get larger bonuses, and a handful of elite boutiques pay bonuses that are 1.5x-2x bulge bracket. And more of your comp comes in the form of bonus.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the top third of IB associates significantly out-earn their BL counterparts, but I bet median IB comp is similar to Davis Polk scale (especially now with the special bonuses).

You can search on Wall Street Oasis to learn more.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days.

Is this really true? Last time I checked post-mba IB associates make similar to biglaw associates.

Street for first-year post-MBA associate was $~260k last year if you're going by BBs. EBs and certain MMs are higher--maybe mid-300s. First-year Biglaw for 2020 is ~220k. If you throw in 10%-15% vesting stock component into it, the net pay difference is a paltry sum if you work at a BB, but the scale does go up faster. Pay was bumped to $175k from $150k for first-year post-MBA associates, but a lot of people are under the impression that banks will just remove the bump from the bonus portion (which is apparently what happened when the pay was bumped from $125k to $150k) so whether that's an actual bump remains to be seen.

M&A lawyering and banking are completely different. At a basic level, a good way to think about the difference is Word vs. Excel and Powerpoint. As a lawyer, you will be spending almost all of your time in Word. In the context of an M&A deal, this means drafting the merger agreement and other ancillary documents, negotiating with other lawyers about what those docs should say, making sure that everything is documented correctly and signed and organized so that the deal can be closed and effectuated. As a banker, you're building a financial model of the company in Excel, figuring out the company's value, negotiating the business terms of the deal, etc. A lot of this information is presented to the relevant parties in powerpoint presentations.

Because the jobs are so different and it's never really been clear to me why practicing law as an M&A lawyer would really help anyone become an M&A banker. Also, from my perspective (which I think is widely shared), there's just absolutely no question that being an M&A banker is infinitely better than being an M&A lawyer. For one, the pay as a junior banker is substantially better. I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days. The hours are terrible in worse, maybe a little worse in banking but not by much. The work in banking, while not always enjoyable, is more interesting and less tedious. This bears repeating -- there is almost nothing as tedious as the work you will do as a junior corporate lawyer (e.g., making signature pages, marking up hundreds of pages of contracts, going back and forth with the other side on shit that doesn't matter at all, etc.). The work/life balance actually improves in banking as you move up the ladder, unlike in law. Finally, the options from banking are way better -- you can stay in banking and climb the ranks there (generally easier to do than to make partner at a law firm), you can move to the buyside (private equity/hedge funds), you can work in a business role in a variety of corporate contexts. Coming out of M&A law, the most likely exit is an in-house job where you make much less money and don't do particularly glamorous or interesting work (but have a better quality of life).

This is all to say that if you're thinking about M&A banking vs. law, you absolutely should do M&A banking if that is an option. My recommendation would be to get an MBA and recruit directly into investment banking (and skip M&A law practice entirely) if that's something you're serious about.

This is a very slanted comparison that is at some points accurate. I use excel and ppt on a regular basis at my V10. I've built financial models and drafted portions of PE investment committee decks. I won't pretend like my job is extremely quantative. It's not, but I feel like what I do matters. Mid-levels where I am are regularly in communication with MDs at PE funds, who actually know and fight the other side on big ticket terms. Senior associates and partners here regularly review audited financials, and the good ones are capable of actually reading the statements instead of just the footnotes and connecting it with the documents.

I used to work side-by-side with a banker friend that did a mix of RX and M&A. He did the exact same thing as I did--fix comments about formatting and minor substance that could've easily just been fixed by someone higher up in a shorter period of time. There's nothing inherently more interesting about it.

Most post-MBA associates don't have that great of a shot at buyside. It'd be like saying M&A lawyers can make a unicorn $400k exit. Yeah, I've seen it happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

There's just no way to prove or disprove the claim on whether it's easier to make MD than Biglaw partner, but my guess is that it isn't. MD pay is also incredibly variable and job security is not as good. I once tried to dispute this claim with a banker friend, and they started up LinkedIn profiles (multiple) of MDs that he knew were let go. Most of these folks (not from shitty banks either, one was from GS) are ending up as VPs/SVPs at small to mid-sized companies, making ~300k-~500k in their mid-40s and sometimes 50s. This is also backed up by the fact that I do PE portfolio company work (executive compensation documents) and see what the backgrounds and pay of these executives are.

If you go in-house as an M&A associate, could you stagnate in pay and end up in that pay and age range? Of course, but it's your career. You decide which industries to move into, and when it's time to jump ship if your annual raises aren't keeping up with the market or when a chance at a GC-track position comes up. In this market, firms are begging in-house counsel to return (sometimes as partners) to Biglaw.

I do agree that OP's view is widely shared. Biglaw is filled with bitter people. It's engrained into the culture of even 1L. I don't understand why. Biglaw is a 55-hour a week job with a could-come-at-any-moment dimension. That's not that different from banking or PE or an ER physician. I could be pulled into a 12-hour day at any moment on this particular Sunday morning, but I'm not sitting at home, having a nervous breakdown about it. I just do what I do until I have to stop and do work.

Anyway, that's my view. I'm sure that it's slanted too to a certain degree, but I don't want law students who might read it the post above to only hear one-side.

[Anonymous User]

I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days.

Is this really true? Last time I checked post-mba IB associates make similar to biglaw associates.

Street for first-year post-MBA associate was $~260k last year if you're going by BBs. EBs and certain MMs are higher--maybe mid-300s. First-year Biglaw for 2020 is ~220k. If you throw in 10%-15% vesting stock component into it, the net pay difference is a paltry sum if you work at a BB, but the scale does go up faster. Pay was bumped to $175k from $150k for first-year post-MBA associates, but a lot of people are under the impression that banks will just remove the bump from the bonus portion (which is apparently what happened when the pay was bumped from $125k to $150k) so whether that's an actual bump remains to be seen.

M&A lawyering and banking are completely different. At a basic level, a good way to think about the difference is Word vs. Excel and Powerpoint. As a lawyer, you will be spending almost all of your time in Word. In the context of an M&A deal, this means drafting the merger agreement and other ancillary documents, negotiating with other lawyers about what those docs should say, making sure that everything is documented correctly and signed and organized so that the deal can be closed and effectuated. As a banker, you're building a financial model of the company in Excel, figuring out the company's value, negotiating the business terms of the deal, etc. A lot of this information is presented to the relevant parties in powerpoint presentations.

Because the jobs are so different and it's never really been clear to me why practicing law as an M&A lawyer would really help anyone become an M&A banker. Also, from my perspective (which I think is widely shared), there's just absolutely no question that being an M&A banker is infinitely better than being an M&A lawyer. For one, the pay as a junior banker is substantially better. I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days. The hours are terrible in worse, maybe a little worse in banking but not by much. The work in banking, while not always enjoyable, is more interesting and less tedious. This bears repeating -- there is almost nothing as tedious as the work you will do as a junior corporate lawyer (e.g., making signature pages, marking up hundreds of pages of contracts, going back and forth with the other side on shit that doesn't matter at all, etc.). The work/life balance actually improves in banking as you move up the ladder, unlike in law. Finally, the options from banking are way better -- you can stay in banking and climb the ranks there (generally easier to do than to make partner at a law firm), you can move to the buyside (private equity/hedge funds), you can work in a business role in a variety of corporate contexts. Coming out of M&A law, the most likely exit is an in-house job where you make much less money and don't do particularly glamorous or interesting work (but have a better quality of life).

This is all to say that if you're thinking about M&A banking vs. law, you absolutely should do M&A banking if that is an option. My recommendation would be to get an MBA and recruit directly into investment banking (and skip M&A law practice entirely) if that's something you're serious about.

This is a very slanted comparison that is at some points accurate. I use excel and ppt on a regular basis at my V10. I've built financial models and drafted portions of PE investment committee decks. I won't pretend like my job is extremely quantative. It's not, but I feel like what I do matters. Mid-levels where I am are regularly in communication with MDs at PE funds, who actually know and fight the other side on big ticket terms. Senior associates and partners here regularly review audited financials, and the good ones are capable of actually reading the statements instead of just the footnotes and connecting it with the documents.

I used to work side-by-side with a banker friend that did a mix of RX and M&A. He did the exact same thing as I did--fix comments about formatting and minor substance that could've easily just been fixed by someone higher up in a shorter period of time. There's nothing inherently more interesting about it.

Most post-MBA associates don't have that great of a shot at buyside. It'd be like saying M&A lawyers can make a unicorn $400k exit. Yeah, I've seen it happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

There's just no way to prove or disprove the claim on whether it's easier to make MD than Biglaw partner, but my guess is that it isn't. MD pay is also incredibly variable and job security is not as good. I once tried to dispute this claim with a banker friend, and they started up LinkedIn profiles (multiple) of MDs that he knew were let go. Most of these folks (not from shitty banks either, one was from GS) are ending up as VPs/SVPs at small to mid-sized companies, making ~300k-~500k in their mid-40s and sometimes 50s. This is also backed up by the fact that I do PE portfolio company work (executive compensation documents) and see what the backgrounds and pay of these executives are.

If you go in-house as an M&A associate, could you stagnate in pay and end up in that pay and age range? Of course, but it's your career. You decide which industries to move into, and when it's time to jump ship if your annual raises aren't keeping up with the market or when a chance at a GC-track position comes up. In this market, firms are begging in-house counsel to return (sometimes as partners) to Biglaw.

I do agree that OP's view is widely shared. Biglaw is filled with bitter people. It's engrained into the culture of even 1L. I don't understand why. Biglaw is a 55-hour a week job with a could-come-at-any-moment dimension. That's not that different from banking or PE or an ER physician. I could be pulled into a 12-hour day at any moment on this particular Sunday morning, but I'm not sitting at home, having a nervous breakdown about it. I just do what I do until I have to stop and do work.

Anyway, that's my view. I'm sure that it's slanted too to a certain degree, but I don't want law students who might read it the post above to only hear one-side.

wait ... you do financial modeling and excel sheets/ slides for deals as a big law m&a junior on a regular basis ...? I'm so confused, what kind of financial modeling and what kind of spreadsheets in general, would you mind elaborating a little? what aspect of SPA drafting or legal DD requires financial modeling? I've never heard of it somehow lmao and I'm also at a NYC v10, am I doing it wrong

[Anonymous User]

Delete

[Anonymous User]

I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days.

Is this really true? Last time I checked post-mba IB associates make similar to biglaw associates.

Street for first-year post-MBA associate was $~260k last year if you're going by BBs. EBs and certain MMs are higher--maybe mid-300s. First-year Biglaw for 2020 is ~220k. If you throw in 10%-15% vesting stock component into it, the net pay difference is a paltry sum if you work at a BB, but the scale does go up faster. Pay was bumped to $175k from $150k for first-year post-MBA associates, but a lot of people are under the impression that banks will just remove the bump from the bonus portion (which is apparently what happened when the pay was bumped from $125k to $150k) so whether that's an actual bump remains to be seen.

M&A lawyering and banking are completely different. At a basic level, a good way to think about the difference is Word vs. Excel and Powerpoint. As a lawyer, you will be spending almost all of your time in Word. In the context of an M&A deal, this means drafting the merger agreement and other ancillary documents, negotiating with other lawyers about what those docs should say, making sure that everything is documented correctly and signed and organized so that the deal can be closed and effectuated. As a banker, you're building a financial model of the company in Excel, figuring out the company's value, negotiating the business terms of the deal, etc. A lot of this information is presented to the relevant parties in powerpoint presentations.

Because the jobs are so different and it's never really been clear to me why practicing law as an M&A lawyer would really help anyone become an M&A banker. Also, from my perspective (which I think is widely shared), there's just absolutely no question that being an M&A banker is infinitely better than being an M&A lawyer. For one, the pay as a junior banker is substantially better. I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days. The hours are terrible in worse, maybe a little worse in banking but not by much. The work in banking, while not always enjoyable, is more interesting and less tedious. This bears repeating -- there is almost nothing as tedious as the work you will do as a junior corporate lawyer (e.g., making signature pages, marking up hundreds of pages of contracts, going back and forth with the other side on shit that doesn't matter at all, etc.). The work/life balance actually improves in banking as you move up the ladder, unlike in law. Finally, the options from banking are way better -- you can stay in banking and climb the ranks there (generally easier to do than to make partner at a law firm), you can move to the buyside (private equity/hedge funds), you can work in a business role in a variety of corporate contexts. Coming out of M&A law, the most likely exit is an in-house job where you make much less money and don't do particularly glamorous or interesting work (but have a better quality of life).

This is all to say that if you're thinking about M&A banking vs. law, you absolutely should do M&A banking if that is an option. My recommendation would be to get an MBA and recruit directly into investment banking (and skip M&A law practice entirely) if that's something you're serious about.

This is a very slanted comparison that is at some points accurate. I use excel and ppt on a regular basis at my V10. I've built financial models and drafted portions of PE investment committee decks. I won't pretend like my job is extremely quantative. It's not, but I feel like what I do matters. Mid-levels where I am are regularly in communication with MDs at PE funds, who actually know and fight the other side on big ticket terms. Senior associates and partners here regularly review audited financials, and the good ones are capable of actually reading the statements instead of just the footnotes and connecting it with the documents.

I used to work side-by-side with a banker friend that did a mix of RX and M&A. He did the exact same thing as I did--fix comments about formatting and minor substance that could've easily just been fixed by someone higher up in a shorter period of time. There's nothing inherently more interesting about it.

Most post-MBA associates don't have that great of a shot at buyside. It'd be like saying M&A lawyers can make a unicorn $400k exit. Yeah, I've seen it happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

There's just no way to prove or disprove the claim on whether it's easier to make MD than Biglaw partner, but my guess is that it isn't. MD pay is also incredibly variable and job security is not as good. I once tried to dispute this claim with a banker friend, and they started up LinkedIn profiles (multiple) of MDs that he knew were let go. Most of these folks (not from shitty banks either, one was from GS) are ending up as VPs/SVPs at small to mid-sized companies, making ~300k-~500k in their mid-40s and sometimes 50s. This is also backed up by the fact that I do PE portfolio company work (executive compensation documents) and see what the backgrounds and pay of these executives are.

If you go in-house as an M&A associate, could you stagnate in pay and end up in that pay and age range? Of course, but it's your career. You decide which industries to move into, and when it's time to jump ship if your annual raises aren't keeping up with the market or when a chance at a GC-track position comes up. In this market, firms are begging in-house counsel to return (sometimes as partners) to Biglaw.

I do agree that OP's view is widely shared. Biglaw is filled with bitter people. It's engrained into the culture of even 1L. I don't understand why. Biglaw is a 55-hour a week job with a could-come-at-any-moment dimension. That's not that different from banking or PE or an ER physician. I could be pulled into a 12-hour day at any moment on this particular Sunday morning, but I'm not sitting at home, having a nervous breakdown about it. I just do what I do until I have to stop and do work.

Anyway, that's my view. I'm sure that it's slanted too to a certain degree, but I don't want law students who might read it the post above to only hear one-side.

Former investment banking analyst/associate. Co-sign all of this---compensation, comments, career (in)stability.

Will just add that banking is not "extremely quantitative." our financial models are made by 22 y/o Georgetown graduates with no previous full-time work experience supervised by 29 y/o Booth MBAs with no previous finance experience. this shit is not complicated. you can learn how to make a paydown or a DCF (lol) over the course of a single weekend---which is what most analysts do for PE recruiting. if you want to, buy a modeling course; there's a whole cottage industry at this point.

the challenging part isn't the mechanics. it's making accurate assumptions about future earnings, cost structure, etc. which bankers don't have much to do with.

[Anonymous User]

I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days.

Is this really true? Last time I checked post-mba IB associates make similar to biglaw associates.

Street for first-year post-MBA associate was $~260k last year if you're going by BBs. EBs and certain MMs are higher--maybe mid-300s. First-year Biglaw for 2020 is ~220k. If you throw in 10%-15% vesting stock component into it, the net pay difference is a paltry sum if you work at a BB, but the scale does go up faster. Pay was bumped to $175k from $150k for first-year post-MBA associates, but a lot of people are under the impression that banks will just remove the bump from the bonus portion (which is apparently what happened when the pay was bumped from $125k to $150k) so whether that's an actual bump remains to be seen.

M&A lawyering and banking are completely different. At a basic level, a good way to think about the difference is Word vs. Excel and Powerpoint. As a lawyer, you will be spending almost all of your time in Word. In the context of an M&A deal, this means drafting the merger agreement and other ancillary documents, negotiating with other lawyers about what those docs should say, making sure that everything is documented correctly and signed and organized so that the deal can be closed and effectuated. As a banker, you're building a financial model of the company in Excel, figuring out the company's value, negotiating the business terms of the deal, etc. A lot of this information is presented to the relevant parties in powerpoint presentations.

Because the jobs are so different and it's never really been clear to me why practicing law as an M&A lawyer would really help anyone become an M&A banker. Also, from my perspective (which I think is widely shared), there's just absolutely no question that being an M&A banker is infinitely better than being an M&A lawyer. For one, the pay as a junior banker is substantially better. I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days. The hours are terrible in worse, maybe a little worse in banking but not by much. The work in banking, while not always enjoyable, is more interesting and less tedious. This bears repeating -- there is almost nothing as tedious as the work you will do as a junior corporate lawyer (e.g., making signature pages, marking up hundreds of pages of contracts, going back and forth with the other side on shit that doesn't matter at all, etc.). The work/life balance actually improves in banking as you move up the ladder, unlike in law. Finally, the options from banking are way better -- you can stay in banking and climb the ranks there (generally easier to do than to make partner at a law firm), you can move to the buyside (private equity/hedge funds), you can work in a business role in a variety of corporate contexts. Coming out of M&A law, the most likely exit is an in-house job where you make much less money and don't do particularly glamorous or interesting work (but have a better quality of life).

This is all to say that if you're thinking about M&A banking vs. law, you absolutely should do M&A banking if that is an option. My recommendation would be to get an MBA and recruit directly into investment banking (and skip M&A law practice entirely) if that's something you're serious about.

There's just no way to prove or disprove the claim on whether it's easier to make MD than Biglaw partner, but my guess is that it isn't. MD pay is also incredibly variable and job security is not as good. I once tried to dispute this claim with a banker friend, and they started up LinkedIn profiles (multiple) of MDs that he knew were let go. Most of these folks (not from shitty banks either, one was from GS) are ending up as VPs/SVPs at small to mid-sized companies, making ~300k-~500k in their mid-40s and sometimes 50s. This is also backed up by the fact that I do PE portfolio company work (executive compensation documents) and see what the backgrounds and pay of these executives are.

^This. I think too many people on here think banking offers a MUCH better path to higher pay, but so many bankers just end up as VPs, making a solid upper-middle class income for the rest of their lives (or, if they exit, land in CorpDev roles at some big company paying maybe $400k all-in year after year). Definitely not shabby lol, but it's not like every banker makes it rain as a Goldman partner. And, tbh, I'm not even sure if a Goldman partner makes that much more than, say, a Kirkland or Cravath partner these days (it's not pre-2007)...and I'd wager it's tangibly harder to make partner at Goldman, even with the depressing partner promotion chances at V10 firms. Also, with all the random titles in banking, you can get shoved into a glorified senior associate role much more easily (tbf, Kirkland is importing this practice into the legal profession with its NSP role). Exits in banking are also romanticized. Only the superstars are landing at Sequoia or Blackstone and then becoming an MD pulling millions in carry. Not saying law is easier, but I'd just echo what someone said way earlier in the thread that making [equity] partner at a V10 (since OP is at a V10) is a pretty lucrative outcome. You're also basically "tenured" lol.

[Anonymous User]

I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days.

Is this really true? Last time I checked post-mba IB associates make similar to biglaw associates.

Street for first-year post-MBA associate was $~260k last year if you're going by BBs. EBs and certain MMs are higher--maybe mid-300s. First-year Biglaw for 2020 is ~220k. If you throw in 10%-15% vesting stock component into it, the net pay difference is a paltry sum if you work at a BB, but the scale does go up faster. Pay was bumped to $175k from $150k for first-year post-MBA associates, but a lot of people are under the impression that banks will just remove the bump from the bonus portion (which is apparently what happened when the pay was bumped from $125k to $150k) so whether that's an actual bump remains to be seen.

M&A lawyering and banking are completely different. At a basic level, a good way to think about the difference is Word vs. Excel and Powerpoint. As a lawyer, you will be spending almost all of your time in Word. In the context of an M&A deal, this means drafting the merger agreement and other ancillary documents, negotiating with other lawyers about what those docs should say, making sure that everything is documented correctly and signed and organized so that the deal can be closed and effectuated. As a banker, you're building a financial model of the company in Excel, figuring out the company's value, negotiating the business terms of the deal, etc. A lot of this information is presented to the relevant parties in powerpoint presentations.

Because the jobs are so different and it's never really been clear to me why practicing law as an M&A lawyer would really help anyone become an M&A banker. Also, from my perspective (which I think is widely shared), there's just absolutely no question that being an M&A banker is infinitely better than being an M&A lawyer. For one, the pay as a junior banker is substantially better. I think post-MBA bankers are making almost 2x as much as similarly situated big law associates these days. The hours are terrible in worse, maybe a little worse in banking but not by much. The work in banking, while not always enjoyable, is more interesting and less tedious. This bears repeating -- there is almost nothing as tedious as the work you will do as a junior corporate lawyer (e.g., making signature pages, marking up hundreds of pages of contracts, going back and forth with the other side on shit that doesn't matter at all, etc.). The work/life balance actually improves in banking as you move up the ladder, unlike in law. Finally, the options from banking are way better -- you can stay in banking and climb the ranks there (generally easier to do than to make partner at a law firm), you can move to the buyside (private equity/hedge funds), you can work in a business role in a variety of corporate contexts. Coming out of M&A law, the most likely exit is an in-house job where you make much less money and don't do particularly glamorous or interesting work (but have a better quality of life).

This is all to say that if you're thinking about M&A banking vs. law, you absolutely should do M&A banking if that is an option. My recommendation would be to get an MBA and recruit directly into investment banking (and skip M&A law practice entirely) if that's something you're serious about.

This is a very slanted comparison that is at some points accurate. I use excel and ppt on a regular basis at my V10. I've built financial models and drafted portions of PE investment committee decks. I won't pretend like my job is extremely quantative. It's not, but I feel like what I do matters. Mid-levels where I am are regularly in communication with MDs at PE funds, who actually know and fight the other side on big ticket terms. Senior associates and partners here regularly review audited financials, and the good ones are capable of actually reading the statements instead of just the footnotes and connecting it with the documents.

I used to work side-by-side with a banker friend that did a mix of RX and M&A. He did the exact same thing as I did--fix comments about formatting and minor substance that could've easily just been fixed by someone higher up in a shorter period of time. There's nothing inherently more interesting about it.

Most post-MBA associates don't have that great of a shot at buyside. It'd be like saying M&A lawyers can make a unicorn $400k exit. Yeah, I've seen it happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

There's just no way to prove or disprove the claim on whether it's easier to make MD than Biglaw partner, but my guess is that it isn't. MD pay is also incredibly variable and job security is not as good. I once tried to dispute this claim with a banker friend, and they started up LinkedIn profiles (multiple) of MDs that he knew were let go. Most of these folks (not from shitty banks either, one was from GS) are ending up as VPs/SVPs at small to mid-sized companies, making ~300k-~500k in their mid-40s and sometimes 50s. This is also backed up by the fact that I do PE portfolio company work (executive compensation documents) and see what the backgrounds and pay of these executives are.

If you go in-house as an M&A associate, could you stagnate in pay and end up in that pay and age range? Of course, but it's your career. You decide which industries to move into, and when it's time to jump ship if your annual raises aren't keeping up with the market or when a chance at a GC-track position comes up. In this market, firms are begging in-house counsel to return (sometimes as partners) to Biglaw.

I do agree that OP's view is widely shared. Biglaw is filled with bitter people. It's engrained into the culture of even 1L. I don't understand why. Biglaw is a 55-hour a week job with a could-come-at-any-moment dimension. That's not that different from banking or PE or an ER physician. I could be pulled into a 12-hour day at any moment on this particular Sunday morning, but I'm not sitting at home, having a nervous breakdown about it. I just do what I do until I have to stop and do work.

Anyway, that's my view. I'm sure that it's slanted too to a certain degree, but I don't want law students who might read it the post above to only hear one-side.

Former investment banking analyst/associate. Co-sign all of this---compensation, comments, career (in)stability.

Will just add that banking is not "extremely quantitative." our financial models are made by 22 y/o Georgetown graduates with no previous full-time work experience supervised by 29 y/o Booth MBAs with no previous finance experience. this shit is not complicated. you can learn how to make a paydown or a DCF (lol) over the course of a single weekend---which is what most analysts do for PE recruiting. if you want to, buy a modeling course; there's a whole cottage industry at this point.

the challenging part isn't the mechanics. it's making accurate assumptions about future earnings, cost structure, etc. which bankers don't have much to do with.

Are the technicals really this easy? Why then do ppl on here make a big deal about lawyers not having the hard skills to make the transition? I presume that is thrown around in the context of an associate who had a liberal arts major, zero prior business experience, and has to learn that side of it through osmosis on deals. But wouldn't any reasonably ambitious mid-level or senior have these skills...


And to the below poster, how easy is it to lateral from of counsel/NSP purgatory to a VP type role? i.e., if shooting the equity partner shot doesn't work out. Curious if it beats out lateraling downward to a lesser firm.

[Anonymous User]

Are the technicals really this easy? Why then do ppl on here make a big deal about lawyers not having the hard skills to make the transition? I presume that is thrown around in the context of an associate who had a liberal arts major, zero prior business experience, and has to learn that side of it through osmosis on deals. But wouldn't any reasonably ambitious mid-level or senior have these skills...
.

And to the below poster, how easy is it to lateral from of counsel/NSP purgatory to a VP type role? i.e., if shooting the equity partner shot doesn't work out. Curious if it beats out lateraling downward to a lesser firm.

1. yes. most analysts have no meaningful excel experience when they start banking. somehow, every year, the vast majority become minimally competent w/in 3 months. either we're all geniuses, or this stuff actually isn't very difficult. and while it would be flattering to believe the former, I tend towards the latter. you can decide for yourself: https://macabacus.com/learn (to be clear---I can't imagine an incoming ex-lawyer associate would be expected to build these things from scratch. most of the seasoned associates I worked with probably couldn't.)

2. reject the premise. don't think it's super hard to jump to banking, if you want it. we had a number of ex-lawyers at my bank. worked across from some at other banks on deals. and that was early 2010s, it's even easier now. banks are desperate for talent, same as BigLaw. hear it from friends, hear it from recruiters. maybe someone who's made that transition can talk about the specifics.

[Anonymous User]

Are the technicals really this easy? Why then do ppl on here make a big deal about lawyers not having the hard skills to make the transition? I presume that is thrown around in the context of an associate who had a liberal arts major, zero prior business experience, and has to learn that side of it through osmosis on deals. But wouldn't any reasonably ambitious mid-level or senior have these skills...
.

And to the below poster, how easy is it to lateral from of counsel/NSP purgatory to a VP type role? i.e., if shooting the equity partner shot doesn't work out. Curious if it beats out lateraling downward to a lesser firm.

1. yes. most analysts have no meaningful excel experience when they start banking. somehow, every year, the vast majority become minimally competent w/in 3 months. either we're all geniuses, or this stuff actually isn't very difficult. and while it would be flattering to believe the former, I tend towards the latter. you can decide for yourself: https://macabacus.com/learn
2. reject the premise. don't think it's particularly hard to jump to banking, if you want it. we had a number of ex-lawyers at my bank. worked across from some on deals. it's even easier now---banks are desperate for talent, same as BigLaw. hear it from friends, hear it from recruiters emailing me with job openings.

Very interesting - what's you take on the optimal year to jump over? As a 3L considering a switch, should I wait to get 2-3 years experience at my firm or should I start trying to network into one of these positions now?

[Anonymous User]

Very interesting - what's you take on the optimal year to jump over? As a 3L considering a switch, should I wait to get 2-3 years experience at my firm or should I start trying to network into one of these positions now?

I went banking -> law school -> lawyer. so, again, I can't really speak to the law -> banking transition with firsthand experience.

but if you're a 3L and you don't want to practice law, I see no reason to wait. the banks hired out of T14 law schools when I was an anlayst/associate, when I was a law student.. just go to career services and ask them about it, they can probably set you up. and yes, networking always helps

[Anonymous User]

1. yes. most analysts have no meaningful excel experience when they start banking. somehow, every year, the vast majority become minimally competent w/in 3 months. either we're all geniuses, or this stuff actually isn't very difficult. and while it would be flattering to believe the former, I tend towards the latter. you can decide for yourself: https://macabacus.com/learn
2. reject the premise. don't think it's particularly hard to jump to banking, if you want it. we had a number of ex-lawyers at my bank. worked across from some on deals. it's even easier now---banks are desperate for talent, same as BigLaw. hear it from friends, hear it from recruiters emailing me with job openings.

Very interesting - what's you take on the optimal year to jump over? As a 3L considering a switch, should I wait to get 2-3 years experience at my firm or should I start trying to network into one of these positions now?

I went banking -> law school -> lawyer, so I'm the wrong person to ask. I like the law.

but if you don't, you should be interviewing for banking jobs ... like, now. why would you wait?
[/quote]

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about the law yet lol, banking just seems like it has more upside. I'm thinking I might need to wait b/c my undergrad/MBA aren't very prestigious and go to a law school on lower end of T14. But with v10 experience (at a corporate dominant firm) figured that might carry some heft, especially to enter at a role above analyst.

Do you think bulge brackets would give me a look now?

edit: also did you transition to M&A or finance related law?

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about the law yet lol, banking just seems like it has more upside. I'm thinking I might need to wait b/c my undergrad/MBA aren't very prestigious and go to a law school on lower end of T14. But with v10 experience (at a corporate dominant firm) figured that might carry some heft, especially to enter at a role above analyst.

Do you think bulge brackets would give me a look now?

1. yes, you're a T14 3L with a V10 summer, that's fine. also, they're desperate
2. you're interviewing to be an associate, not an analyst. analyst = undergraduates, or recent grads. associates = MBA or equivalent. do not ask to be an analyst. will signal to the interviewer that you don't know anything about the industry.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about the law yet lol, banking just seems like it has more upside. I'm thinking I might need to wait b/c my undergrad/MBA aren't very prestigious and go to a law school on lower end of T14. But with v10 experience (at a corporate dominant firm) figured that might carry some heft, especially to enter at a role above analyst.

Do you think bulge brackets would give me a look now?

1. yes, you're a T14 3L with a V10 summer, that's fine. also, they're desperate
2. you're interviewing to be an associate, not an analyst. analyst = undergraduates, or recent grads. associates = MBA or equivalent. do not ask to be an analyst. will signal to the interviewer that you don't know anything about the industry.

Thank you, guess I better start papering some apps.

Did most of the ex-lawyers you worked with at the bank lateral into an associate role or VP position? I know it's probably dependent on experience, but do you have a ballpark of what class year from a firm is generally able to come in above even an associate (I think I read somewhere like 3-4)? Just thinking about my options if I can't lock something up.

[Anonymous User]

Are the technicals really this easy? Why then do ppl on here make a big deal about lawyers not having the hard skills to make the transition? I presume that is thrown around in the context of an associate who had a liberal arts major, zero prior business experience, and has to learn that side of it through osmosis on deals. But wouldn't any reasonably ambitious mid-level or senior have these skills...

Not OP, but I would say most ambitious mid-levels and seniors where I work DO have these skills. They're skills--not the blessings of a goddess. You can learn them, which I think is what leads to a vocal minority of people on here, who've never put in the effort to learn them, to fetishize them.

I was a liberal arts major and zero prior business experience. I pirated the M&I basic IB course. I then bought a $500 modelling course on a specialized industry (think FIG/O&G, where the modelling is more complicated). I sunk ~300-500 hours into those two courses. I haven't touched them in two years, and to this day, I can pull up a financial statement and make sense of just the numbers and put together an operating model of a company in a non-specialized industry based on SEC filings then run a DCF/LBO/M&A model. It'd take me a few months to be able to do it for FIG/O&G again, but it wouldn't be the end of the world to learn it.

IMO, the average Biglaw associate just isn't a very strong individual. They're smart but unwilling to pursue extracurriculars that allow them to take charge of their career. This passive nature is reflected in the OCI system where you just show up and expect a job.

IB analysts are networking, doing ECs, studying interview questions and maintaining a decent GPA at a top college, which itself requires grinding since 14 to get into, by like 19/20... Is it really a surprise that they out-earn people whose only claim to fame is a good LSAT score and not catastrophically screwing up 1L at a T14?

Post-MBA associates usually have 4-5 years of work experience before attending their MBA program. A big chunk were making like $50k-$100k in HCOL areas. They took the time to develop experiences that allow them to be admitted to top MBA program foregoing opportunity costs. Again, is it really that envy-worthy that they graduate at 30 and out-earn their Biglaw counterparts who, on average, are 27-28 by ~$100k?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I mean this kindly. See whether you are built to survive that kind of billable grind before trying to plan out your next decade. It won’t take long. I know I’m probably not.

I mean this unkindly. People with the OP's mindset are often some of the biggest flameouts in Biglaw.

Many, many of your similarly situated peers leave this job before they planned to for one reason or another.

Before I believe in your ability to last 10 or 20 years as a grinder, I'm going to need you to do one deal, power through one closing when you already feel like dogshit, completely lose hold of one of your favorite hobbies, miss one important family/friend event, get screamed at for one fuckup that isn't your fault, etc. You may or may not surprised by the speed that formerly-dedicated grinders change their minds.

Your priorities are going to change as a result of your experience, your age, and your circumstances. What you want now is probably not going to be the exact same thing you want at 35-40.

That does not mean planning your career at the outset is futile or a bad idea at all--matter of fact, every incoming associate should do that. It just means you should think about whether you can climb the metaphorical Everest (and whether it will have even been worth it if you do) and whether it might not be worth your time and efforts to do something other than have your foot 100% on the accelerator.

[thisismytlsuername]

...

IMO, the average Biglaw associate just isn't a very strong individual. They're smart but unwilling to pursue extracurriculars that allow them to take charge of their career. This passive nature is reflected in the OCI system where you just show up and expect a job.

IB analysts are networking, doing ECs, studying interview questions and maintaining a decent GPA at a top college, which itself requires grinding since 14 to get into, by like 19/20... Is it really a surprise that they out-earn people whose only claim to fame is a good LSAT score and not catastrophically screwing up 1L at a T14?

Post-MBA associates usually have 4-5 years of work experience before attending their MBA program. A big chunk were making like $50k-$100k in HCOL areas. They took the time to develop experiences that allow them to be admitted to top MBA program foregoing opportunity costs. Again, is it really that envy-worthy that they graduate at 30 and out-earn their Biglaw counterparts who, on average, are 27-28 by ~$100k?

lol this is some wild i-banking flame.

[Jk14]

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about the law yet lol, banking just seems like it has more upside. I'm thinking I might need to wait b/c my undergrad/MBA aren't very prestigious and go to a law school on lower end of T14. But with v10 experience (at a corporate dominant firm) figured that might carry some heft, especially to enter at a role above analyst.

Do you think bulge brackets would give me a look now?

1. yes, you're a T14 3L with a V10 summer, that's fine. also, they're desperate
2. you're interviewing to be an associate, not an analyst. analyst = undergraduates, or recent grads. associates = MBA or equivalent. do not ask to be an analyst. will signal to the interviewer that you don't know anything about the industry.

Anon would you mind pm'ing me (Jk14)? Would love to pick your brain a bit more offline.

[Anonymous User]

...

IMO, the average Biglaw associate just isn't a very strong individual. They're smart but unwilling to pursue extracurriculars that allow them to take charge of their career. This passive nature is reflected in the OCI system where you just show up and expect a job.

IB analysts are networking, doing ECs, studying interview questions and maintaining a decent GPA at a top college, which itself requires grinding since 14 to get into, by like 19/20... Is it really a surprise that they out-earn people whose only claim to fame is a good LSAT score and not catastrophically screwing up 1L at a T14?

Post-MBA associates usually have 4-5 years of work experience before attending their MBA program. A big chunk were making like $50k-$100k in HCOL areas. They took the time to develop experiences that allow them to be admitted to top MBA program foregoing opportunity costs. Again, is it really that envy-worthy that they graduate at 30 and out-earn their Biglaw counterparts who, on average, are 27-28 by ~$100k?

lol this is some wild i-banking flame.

lol I was sold until the "not catastrophically screwing up 1L." I mean for biglaw in general sure, but v10/15 or higher 1L's certainly a battle.

[Anonymous User]

I mean this kindly. See whether you are built to survive that kind of billable grind before trying to plan out your next decade. It won’t take long. I know I’m probably not.

I mean this unkindly. People with the OP's mindset are often some of the biggest flameouts in Biglaw.

Many, many of your similarly situated peers leave this job before they planned to for one reason or another.

Before I believe in your ability to last 10 or 20 years as a grinder, I'm going to need you to do one deal, power through one closing when you already feel like dogshit, completely lose hold of one of your favorite hobbies, miss one important family/friend event, get screamed at for one fuckup that isn't your fault, etc. You may or may not surprised by the speed that formerly-dedicated grinders change their minds.

Your priorities are going to change as a result of your experience, your age, and your circumstances. What you want now is probably not going to be the exact same thing you want at 35-40.

That does not mean planning your career at the outset is futile or a bad idea at all--matter of fact, every incoming associate should do that. It just means you should think about whether you can climb the metaphorical Everest (and whether it will have even been worth it if you do) and whether it might not be worth your time and efforts to do something other than have your foot 100% on the accelerator.

Seconded. There are things more important than just making money, and if your sole motivation in BigLaw is making money where you don't at all enjoy the subject material, you will flame out quickly.

[Anonymous User]

I mean this kindly. See whether you are built to survive that kind of billable grind before trying to plan out your next decade. It won’t take long. I know I’m probably not.

I mean this unkindly. People with the OP's mindset are often some of the biggest flameouts in Biglaw.

Many, many of your similarly situated peers leave this job before they planned to for one reason or another.

Before I believe in your ability to last 10 or 20 years as a grinder, I'm going to need you to do one deal, power through one closing when you already feel like dogshit, completely lose hold of one of your favorite hobbies, miss one important family/friend event, get screamed at for one fuckup that isn't your fault, etc. You may or may not surprised by the speed that formerly-dedicated grinders change their minds.

Your priorities are going to change as a result of your experience, your age, and your circumstances. What you want now is probably not going to be the exact same thing you want at 35-40.

That does not mean planning your career at the outset is futile or a bad idea at all--matter of fact, every incoming associate should do that. It just means you should think about whether you can climb the metaphorical Everest (and whether it will have even been worth it if you do) and whether it might not be worth your time and efforts to do something other than have your foot 100% on the accelerator.

Seconded. There are things more important than just making money, and if your sole motivation in BigLaw is making money where you don't at all enjoy the subject material, you will flame out quickly.

Definitely get this take, but then again, if you are going to commit to a high power/time intensive career, isn't is dumb not to try to make the most money? I can't imagine anyone likes law over banking enough to justify hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) less in comp yearly/over the course of a career.

[Anonymous User]

One thing that I want to point out is that talking to a banker about money is like talking to a frat star about how many beers they drank last night.

It's a lot, but it's exaggerated.

First of all, biglaw base salary is higher. Bankers, especially the more senior you are, are compensated through bonuses, which are not guaranteed/lockstep.

Second, every associate and above has 4-5 year clawbacks on that bonus. Thus, you don't have access to the full amount of their pay until 5 years after "making" it. Compare this to our smaller but immediately liquid bonuses.

Third, their "perks" are absolute shit. Not that this makes a huge difference in terms of overall comp, but they have measly/non-existent tech stipends, $25 seamless budgets, reimbursing anything is a pain in the ass etc.

They still make more than us, but it's not as great/different as the people on this thread are making it out to be.

[Anonymous User]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't think the average Goldman MD makes as much as does the average DPW/Kirkland partner.