Most lucrative path starting in corporate at a v10 Forum

[The Lsat Airbender]

bump

What are you hoping to learn that you haven't already? If you want to make a lot of money, gun for partner. Buy term life insurance so that your heirs get a fat payout when you have your second heart attack at 43.

[Anonymous User]

bump

What are you hoping to learn that you haven't already? If you want to make a lot of money, gun for partner. Buy term life insurance so that your heirs get a fat payout when you have your second heart attack at 43.

Still can’t decide if gunning for partner is the optimal path. Would love to hear more takes on both sides (and how to best position re groups choice for lucrative exits).

Partnership is certainly the most straight forward path, but it seems unwise to puts all eggs in that basket. In other words, how can I best gun for partner while at the same time opening the most doors.

Maybe you just can’t plan this sort of stuff…

[Anonymous User]

bump

What are you hoping to learn that you haven't already? If you want to make a lot of money, gun for partner. Buy term life insurance so that your heirs get a fat payout when you have your second heart attack at 43.

Still can’t decide if gunning for partner is the optimal path. Would love to hear more takes on both sides (and how to best position re groups choice for lucrative exits).

Partnership is certainly the most straight forward path, but it seems unwise to puts all eggs in that basket. In other words, how can I best gun for partner while at the same time opening the most doors.

Maybe you just can’t plan this sort of stuff…

[Anonymous User]

In what way is trying to make partner putting your eggs in one basket? If you don't make partner, the eggs didn't break. You just pop over to in house after 7 years.

[Anonymous User]

In what way is trying to make partner putting your eggs in one basket? If you don't make partner, the eggs didn't break. You just pop over to in house after 7 years.

Because the things you are focusing on are likely different. Pure hours billed, the types of relationships/network you’re building, weather your trying to develop legal/biz skills, etc.

Certainly not mutually exclusive but still think it’s a diff game. Plus who wants to pop over to a relatively low paying and less prestigious in house gig. I’d rather die a permanent of counsel or NSP. I think you hit my issue on the head tho, what’s the optimal way to combine the two trajectories resulting in either equity partner or a killer exit.

[Anonymous User]

In what way is trying to make partner putting your eggs in one basket? If you don't make partner, the eggs didn't break. You just pop over to in house after 7 years.

Because the things you are focusing on are likely different. Pure hours billed, the types of relationships/network you’re building, weather your trying to develop legal/biz skills, etc.

Certainly not mutually exclusive but still think it’s a diff game. Plus who wants to pop over to a relatively low paying and less prestigious in house gig. I’d rather die a permanent of counsel or NSP. I think you hit my issue on the head tho, what’s the optimal way to combine the two trajectories resulting in either equity partner or a killer exit.

Do M&A - I think I’ve already mentioned earlier but that is the best group for those who dont know what to do. I know you want to obsess over details but you should really just wait till you start/have at least a few months of biglaw. You will quickly (within months) realize whether pursuing partnership that is something you want to pursue. Once you figure that out you can start thinking about other options.

[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.

[Anonymous User]

In what way is trying to make partner putting your eggs in one basket? If you don't make partner, the eggs didn't break. You just pop over to in house after 7 years.

Because the things you are focusing on are likely different. Pure hours billed, the types of relationships/network you’re building, weather your trying to develop legal/biz skills, etc.

Certainly not mutually exclusive but still think it’s a diff game. Plus who wants to pop over to a relatively low paying and less prestigious in house gig. I’d rather die a permanent of counsel or NSP. I think you hit my issue on the head tho, what’s the optimal way to combine the two trajectories resulting in either equity partner or a killer exit.

It's not a different game. Anyone who is capable of being a partner at a V10 is capable of and has the connections to do any other legal job in their practice area whether that be GC, government, etc.

It's really, really fucking hard to make partner. This site shits on partners (rightfully so for often being cold-hearted bastards grinding associates), but it really is an extremely skilled and difficult position. If you're developing/aiming towards that and end up realizing you don't want it or fall short, you won't be worse off or not have the skills to do other legal work.

Also, no way in hell is counsel better than in-house position. Counsels make $500k and work often as hard as partners. In-house gigs can make 250-300K for half the stress and time commitment. This is coming from someone who never wants to go in-house at a big company because it would be too fucking boring for me, but I would not consider counsel preferable. For income partner, depends on the compensation structure of the firm.

[Anonymous User]

In what way is trying to make partner putting your eggs in one basket? If you don't make partner, the eggs didn't break. You just pop over to in house after 7 years.

Because the things you are focusing on are likely different. Pure hours billed, the types of relationships/network you’re building, weather your trying to develop legal/biz skills, etc.

Certainly not mutually exclusive but still think it’s a diff game. Plus who wants to pop over to a relatively low paying and less prestigious in house gig. I’d rather die a permanent of counsel or NSP. I think you hit my issue on the head tho, what’s the optimal way to combine the two trajectories resulting in either equity partner or a killer exit.

I'll say this, making equity partner is incredibly difficult these days. It's always been hard, but they are really pulling up the ladder nowadays with fewer and fewer people making equity partner each year and firms pushing more people into non-equity roles. I thought I had a real good shot at equity partner, but there were some factors beyond my control that snuffed it out. That's just what happens sometimes and there's not much you can do about it. I ended up making non-equity partner at my firm a few years back and recently lateraled to a different firm in the same role. To give you an idea of comp, this year I'll make $864k with the special bonuses. I'm in a niche practice group so not a ton of in-house opportunities, but the ones that did come along would have been a massive pay cut.

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

Data point

As a rising 2L I asked associates this question a lot over the summer in the run-up to OCI ("Which practice group has the nicest exit ops?") and anyone willing to answer said M&A, apparently because its more generalized than the other groups tend to be, M&A associates interact a lot with bankers so they get the culture (or understand that it's not for them),and M&A just offers a more general skillset than even PE. That said, if you're a PE star then it's obviously easier to go to a PE fund than a generic M&A associate would find it, but they stressed that in general, M&A is the easiest way to go; M&A is the laws school of practice groups, i.e.the place where mildly ambitious people go who aren't sure exactly where they want to end up.

[Anonymous User]

People used to make a ton of money in distressed - that really doesnt exist anymore unless you are a firm founder. A good partner at a top distressed fund (for example Brigade) isnt clearing 10mm a year except maybe in a year like last year while K&E has probably double digit 10mm+ guarantees active right now. There is de minimis carry at most of these funds right now, and lots of mouths to feed on management fees.

You need equity risk. Whether thats doing buyout PE or getting into VC or founding your own litigation funding firm, thats where you really are raking in dollars. Otherwise, better off being a good biglaw partner.

Limited of number of seats that take lawyers these days as well at distressed funds, the RX banking analyst skillset is better and comes with less execution risk at rates lawyers want to come into investment professional seats at.

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

Data point

As a rising 2L I asked associates this question a lot over the summer in the run-up to OCI ("Which practice group has the nicest exit ops?") and anyone willing to answer said M&A, apparently because its more generalized than the other groups tend to be, M&A associates interact a lot with bankers so they get the culture (or understand that it's not for them),and M&A just offers a more general skillset than even PE. That said, if you're a PE star then it's obviously easier to go to a PE fund than a generic M&A associate would find it, but they stressed that in general, M&A is the easiest way to go; M&A is the laws school of practice groups, i.e.the place where mildly ambitious people go who aren't sure exactly where they want to end up.

How much do people conflate nice exits with just the general availability of exits provided by M&A. I know a fair number of ppl choose it with this in mind.


And to the above poster, which group do think positions one best for finding a position with potential carry. Is M&A really that much worse than credit in this regard?

[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.

[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.

[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.

Unless you had previous banking experience unlikely you can go straight out of law school. That being said, might be possible with lots of networking. M&A banking is either pitching clients on selecting your firm for their sell side engagement, or creating CIMs/running roadshows for mandates your bank has already won. This means you are in a sense a salesperson. You massage numbers, come up with creative multiples all in an effort to create the highest possible valuation for your client so that some shmuck at KKR will pay 26x EBITDA for your client's company.

M&A work as an associate largely involves work after the initial term sheet is decided. A price has been principally agreed upon and now the buy-side lawyers do their due diligence to ensure that the company that KKR is paying 26x EBITDA for is actually what KKR thinks they're getting in the transaction. The sell-side lawyers will work to respond to requests for diligence that the buy-side attorneys request and both sides will negotiate over the terms of the purchase agreement.

A good banker understands the needs of the senior bankers. They understand the industry and what valuation the company SHOULD be getting, but also understand how they can pitch the client's company in the best possible light. This may mean different types of multiples, different words choices on CIMs, chasing after different buyers.

A good lawyer understands the needs of their clients. They understand the transaction deeply and understand what matters to the client. Maybe in the case of a middle man supply company anti-assignment clauses in certain contracts aren't important but management agreements are especially because the company largely derives its value from the CEO's connections.

[Anonymous User]

Optimal year to jump from M&A lawyer to banker?

[The Lsat Airbender]

How much do people conflate nice exits with just the general availability of exits provided by M&A. I know a fair number of ppl choose it with this in mind.

More availability means you can more easily target certain industries, certain cities; you can go in-house at different levels of seniority and different points in the business cycle; and, as long as you're content with "normal" in-house comp to begin with, also lets you shop around for the best compensation packages.

That's why M&A (or "general corp", which is basically the same thing for juniors at a V10) is widely reported to have the "best" exits: because having the most options is stochastically equivalent to having the best options for people who care about factors other than bottom-line compensation (which is most people).

If you want a finance position with carry, go to HBS or something. Going into biglaw to get one of the top-end finance jobs is like playing college baseball so you can be an NBA star. Just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous User]

In what way is trying to make partner putting your eggs in one basket? If you don't make partner, the eggs didn't break. You just pop over to in house after 7 years.

Because the things you are focusing on are likely different. Pure hours billed, the types of relationships/network you’re building, weather your trying to develop legal/biz skills, etc.

Certainly not mutually exclusive but still think it’s a diff game. Plus who wants to pop over to a relatively low paying and less prestigious in house gig. I’d rather die a permanent of counsel or NSP. I think you hit my issue on the head tho, what’s the optimal way to combine the two trajectories resulting in either equity partner or a killer exit.

I'll say this, making equity partner is incredibly difficult these days. It's always been hard, but they are really pulling up the ladder nowadays with fewer and fewer people making equity partner each year and firms pushing more people into non-equity roles. I thought I had a real good shot at equity partner, but there were some factors beyond my control that snuffed it out. That's just what happens sometimes and there's not much you can do about it. I ended up making non-equity partner at my firm a few years back and recently lateraled to a different firm in the same role. To give you an idea of comp, this year I'll make $864k with the special bonuses. I'm in a niche practice group so not a ton of in-house opportunities, but the ones that did come along would have been a massive pay cut.

A cool $800k+ all-in annual compensation is still pretty nice

[Anonymous User]

How much do people conflate nice exits with just the general availability of exits provided by M&A. I know a fair number of ppl choose it with this in mind.

More availability means you can more easily target certain industries, certain cities; you can go in-house at different levels of seniority and different points in the business cycle; and, as long as you're content with "normal" in-house comp to begin with, also lets you shop around for the best compensation packages.

That's why M&A (or "general corp", which is basically the same thing for juniors at a V10) is widely reported to have the "best" exits: because having the most options is stochastically equivalent to having the best options for people who care about factors other than bottom-line compensation (which is most people).

If you want a finance position with carry, go to HBS or something. Going into biglaw to get one of the top-end finance jobs is like playing college baseball so you can be an NBA star. Just doesn't make a lot of sense.

So is M&A definitively worse than Credit (maybe even funds too) if one wouldn't be happy with a "normal" in house position. I understand nice finance exits are tougher, but are they harder to get than unicorn M&A exits to actually be a major GC?

My current thought is that if this is the case no reason to pick M&A b/c (1) less lucrative exits generally and (2) firm life is more of a grind. I'd rather stay in a firm than take a run of the mill in house exit.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I understand nice finance exits are tougher, but are they harder to get than unicorn M&A exits to actually be a major GC?

Nobody can definitively answer this. The numerators on both populations are tiny and the M&A vs. LevFin (or whatever) input is probably dominated by a bunch of extraneous stuff like preexisting finance background, what year you graduated law school, whether you have "what it takes" to learn the necessary finance/biz stuff while also holding down an associate job, charisma, risk appetite, etc.

Again, frankly, I think it's a silly thing to optimize for. It's like trying to decide among CLS, GULC and Michigan based on SCOTUS chances.

If you only want an investment role at a high-powered buy-side shop, and would be "unhappy" practicing law in any capacity in the private or public sectors, you already shit the bed by going to law school. Your time at a firm is basically just treading water while you try to network/study your way over to finance.

[Anonymous User]

I understand nice finance exits are tougher, but are they harder to get than unicorn M&A exits to actually be a major GC?

Nobody can definitively answer this. The numerators on both populations are tiny and the M&A vs. LevFin (or whatever) input is probably dominated by a bunch of extraneous stuff like preexisting finance background, what year you graduated law school, whether you have "what it takes" to learn the necessary finance/biz stuff while also holding down an associate job, charisma, risk appetite, etc.

Again, frankly, I think it's a silly thing to optimize for. It's like trying to decide among CLS, GULC and Michigan based on SCOTUS chances.

If you only want an investment role at a high-powered buy-side shop, and would be "unhappy" practicing law in any capacity in the private or public sectors, you already shit the bed by going to law school. Your time at a firm is basically just treading water while you try to network/study your way over to finance.

Again, I know it's a toss up to a certain extent. However, I think it's a perfect thing to optimize for. Instead of thinking about it like CLS/GULC/Mich for SCOTUS -- it's like saying SCOTUS is the dream (i.e., an exit more lucrative than v10 partnership), but which of CLS/GULC/Mich (i.e., Credit/M&A) provide the best shot for at least securing a v10 position in the first place (i.e., shot at making equity partner). In a vacuum (no scholarship), CLS clearly wins.

So, all cards on the table and all else equal, is one better positioning themself by becoming a star Credit or M&A associate (or other)?

[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.

Unless you had previous banking experience unlikely you can go straight out of law school. That being said, might be possible with lots of networking. M&A banking is either pitching clients on selecting your firm for their sell side engagement, or creating CIMs/running roadshows for mandates your bank has already won. This means you are in a sense a salesperson. You massage numbers, come up with creative multiples all in an effort to create the highest possible valuation for your client so that some shmuck at KKR will pay 26x EBITDA for your client's company.

M&A work as an associate largely involves work after the initial term sheet is decided. A price has been principally agreed upon and now the buy-side lawyers do their due diligence to ensure that the company that KKR is paying 26x EBITDA for is actually what KKR thinks they're getting in the transaction. The sell-side lawyers will work to respond to requests for diligence that the buy-side attorneys request and both sides will negotiate over the terms of the purchase agreement.

A good banker understands the needs of the senior bankers. They understand the industry and what valuation the company SHOULD be getting, but also understand how they can pitch the client's company in the best possible light. This may mean different types of multiples, different words choices on CIMs, chasing after different buyers.

A good lawyer understands the needs of their clients. They understand the transaction deeply and understand what matters to the client. Maybe in the case of a middle man supply company anti-assignment clauses in certain contracts aren't important but management agreements are especially because the company largely derives its value from the CEO's connections.

The difficulty in recruiting point - is a bit misleading. Its not easy but a few of the bulge brackets / EBs do OCI for IB roles at T6 law schools and are open to non-OCI candidates. Most of the people going that route are going to coverage / M&A banking and not RX. From when I was in school, GS, credit suisse, MS, JPM, Lazard all recruited on law school campuses.

Same reason MBB hires law grads - looking for pedigreed smart people who problem solve OK. At most levels banking is usually an easier and less technical job than biglaw. More interesting in my view as well but i like variety.

[lawlzschool]

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.

Totally agree with this... I'm a rising second year and it took maybe five months including the two months of being a stub to realize there was absolutely no way I could maintain this for 10+ years

[attorney589753]

How much do people conflate nice exits with just the general availability of exits provided by M&A. I know a fair number of ppl choose it with this in mind.

More availability means you can more easily target certain industries, certain cities; you can go in-house at different levels of seniority and different points in the business cycle; and, as long as you're content with "normal" in-house comp to begin with, also lets you shop around for the best compensation packages.

That's why M&A (or "general corp", which is basically the same thing for juniors at a V10) is widely reported to have the "best" exits: because having the most options is stochastically equivalent to having the best options for people who care about factors other than bottom-line compensation (which is most people).

If you want a finance position with carry, go to HBS or something. Going into biglaw to get one of the top-end finance jobs is like playing college baseball so you can be an NBA star. Just doesn't make a lot of sense.

So is M&A definitively worse than Credit (maybe even funds too) if one wouldn't be happy with a "normal" in house position. I understand nice finance exits are tougher, but are they harder to get than unicorn M&A exits to actually be a major GC?

My current thought is that if this is the case no reason to pick M&A b/c (1) less lucrative exits generally and (2) firm life is more of a grind. I'd rather stay in a firm than take a run of the mill in house exit.

I think getting good in-house exit depends less about what practice group you pick, and more on: being a good lawyer and doing good work, getting clients to like you, getting lucky, and how much effort you put into networking and looking for jobs. If you want to be a corporate lawyer long term, then I do think there is some value in doing at least some M&A work in BigLaw; it is (rightly or wrongly) viewed with respect and also M&A deals come up, in some way, in many companies lifecycles so having that familiarity is helpful.

[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.