Most lucrative path starting in corporate at a v10 Forum

[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.

Also interested - by how much are VP/SVP's beating NSP's and what is the true spread on MD's comp. Obviously the DPW (or other white shoe) partner is probably better off than the avg. Goldman MD but KE has such a variance I can't imagine the majority are better off.

At any rate, isn't all this mitigated by banking having way better exits from near the top if you don't make it all the way.

[Anonymous User]

Posted earlier about M&A banking being better than M&A law across a number of dimensions and got a few replies that I want to address here:

1. I have a had time believing the poster who said he, as a lawyer, models in Excel. Maybe lawyers occasionally use Excel to organize some data or whatnot, but lawyers just are not modeling in any meaningful sense. There is no lawyer who is spending his time building a three-statement financial model, projecting financials, building a DCF, running sensitivity analysis, etc. That's just not what lawyers are paid to do or trained to do. So I would not believe anyone on here claiming that they're modeling or doing anything really sophisticated in Excel at their law firm. Maybe you sometimes have to review a bankers' model (though even that is hard to imagine), but I can't imagine any lawyer taking on a meaningful role in doing any kind of financial analysis.

2. Yes, modeling can be learned, but people posting it on here are making it sound like it's the easiest thing in the world for lawyers to learn how to model and transfer over to investment banking because banks are supposedly "desperate." I know people have made the transition, but I just don't think it's as easy as people are claiming. Banks still want people who know stuff about finance and who can model. This is why they give technical interviews (not like law firm interviews where you shoot the shit for 20 minutes -- in banking interviews you're asked technical finance questions) and often make laterals take a modeling test, where you're expected to demonstrate at least some modeling ability. Of course these skills are learnable, but for most people, even smart people, it will take a significant investment of time (on top of an already demanding job) and some luck. This idea that anyone at a V10 can make the transfer after getting a few years of deal experience from the legal side is just not true. And why spend a few years likely miserable as a corporate M&A associate if the goal is just to go into banking down the road? If the goal is to make that transition, better to get the JD/MBA or just make the jump straight out of law school.

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

4. In banking, lifestyle actually improves. That is not true in law. Everyone will tell you that nobody works harder than partners. That is not the case for MDs. And while there are exceptions, it is generally the case that MDs have it better than VPs, VPs have it better than Associates, and Associates have it better than Analysts. Everyone is working hard, but you generally can claim more control over your life as you climb the ladder. That is not the case in law, where the mid-levels work harder than junior associates and partners work harder than anyone. So if you're interested in having some semblance of a life (you may not think this is important to you -- trust me, you will realize quickly that it is), banking in the long term is a better bet than M&A law.

5. Little addressed here is that the work in M&A banking is better than M&A law from a substantive work standpoint. Both involve bitch work but it's generally better to understand the business and negotiate the business terms than to go back and forth with the other side about the language in the merger agreement. My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work. Banking has plenty of bitch work too and also isn't always interesting, but I think few people would say that being an M&A lawyer is more interesting or a better job on a substantive level. Maybe it's just a matter of taste/preference, but there's a reason M&A lawyers are trying to become bankers whereas the reverse almost never happens.

Anyway, I appreciate that this is a "slanted" view, but it is very hard for me to see what the upside of doing M&A law vs. banking would be, unless you just *like* practicing corporate law more than investment banking. I guess there are people who fall in that category but I find it hard to understand.

[Anonymous User]

Posted earlier about M&A banking being better than M&A law across a number of dimensions and got a few replies that I want to address here:

1. I have a had time believing the poster who said he, as a lawyer, models in Excel. Maybe lawyers occasionally use Excel to organize some data or whatnot, but lawyers just are not modeling in any meaningful sense. There is no lawyer who is spending his time building a three-statement financial model, projecting financials, building a DCF, running sensitivity analysis, etc. That's just not what lawyers are paid to do or trained to do. So I would not believe anyone on here claiming that they're modeling or doing anything really sophisticated in Excel at their law firm. Maybe you sometimes have to review a bankers' model (though even that is hard to imagine), but I can't imagine any lawyer taking on a meaningful role in doing any kind of financial analysis.

2. Yes, modeling can be learned, but people posting it on here are making it sound like it's the easiest thing in the world for lawyers to learn how to model and transfer over to investment banking because banks are supposedly "desperate." I know people have made the transition, but I just don't think it's as easy as people are claiming. Banks still want people who know stuff about finance and who can model. This is why they give technical interviews (not like law firm interviews where you shoot the shit for 20 minutes -- in banking interviews you're asked technical finance questions) and often make laterals take a modeling test, where you're expected to demonstrate at least some modeling ability. Of course these skills are learnable, but for most people, even smart people, it will take a significant investment of time (on top of an already demanding job) and some luck. This idea that anyone at a V10 can make the transfer after getting a few years of deal experience from the legal side is just not true. And why spend a few years likely miserable as a corporate M&A associate if the goal is just to go into banking down the road? If the goal is to make that transition, better to get the JD/MBA or just make the jump straight out of law school.

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

4. In banking, lifestyle actually improves. That is not true in law. Everyone will tell you that nobody works harder than partners. That is not the case for MDs. And while there are exceptions, it is generally the case that MDs have it better than VPs, VPs have it better than Associates, and Associates have it better than Analysts. Everyone is working hard, but you generally can claim more control over your life as you climb the ladder. That is not the case in law, where the mid-levels work harder than junior associates and partners work harder than anyone. So if you're interested in having some semblance of a life (you may not think this is important to you -- trust me, you will realize quickly that it is), banking in the long term is a better bet than M&A law.

5. Little addressed here is that the work in M&A banking is better than M&A law from a substantive work standpoint. Both involve bitch work but it's generally better to understand the business and negotiate the business terms than to go back and forth with the other side about the language in the merger agreement. My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work. Banking has plenty of bitch work too and also isn't always interesting, but I think few people would say that being an M&A lawyer is more interesting or a better job on a substantive level. Maybe it's just a matter of taste/preference, but there's a reason M&A lawyers are trying to become bankers whereas the reverse almost never happens.

Anyway, I appreciate that this is a "slanted" view, but it is very hard for me to see what the upside of doing M&A law vs. banking would be, unless you just *like* practicing corporate law more than investment banking. I guess there are people who fall in that category but I find it hard to understand.

Understand that it's not as "easy" as some say to master modeling/financials, but what's your opinion on being able to grasp them well enough in a weekend or two to crush interviews. Assuming some business background, of course.

Are banks not as desperate as law firms for bodies rn? Do you have any idea of the current market for 3L hires or the IB incoming associate market generally?

[Anonymous User]

Posted earlier about M&A banking being better than M&A law across a number of dimensions and got a few replies that I want to address here:

1. I have a had time believing the poster who said he, as a lawyer, models in Excel. Maybe lawyers occasionally use Excel to organize some data or whatnot, but lawyers just are not modeling in any meaningful sense. There is no lawyer who is spending his time building a three-statement financial model, projecting financials, building a DCF, running sensitivity analysis, etc. That's just not what lawyers are paid to do or trained to do. So I would not believe anyone on here claiming that they're modeling or doing anything really sophisticated in Excel at their law firm. Maybe you sometimes have to review a bankers' model (though even that is hard to imagine), but I can't imagine any lawyer taking on a meaningful role in doing any kind of financial analysis.

2. Yes, modeling can be learned, but people posting it on here are making it sound like it's the easiest thing in the world for lawyers to learn how to model and transfer over to investment banking because banks are supposedly "desperate." I know people have made the transition, but I just don't think it's as easy as people are claiming. Banks still want people who know stuff about finance and who can model. This is why they give technical interviews (not like law firm interviews where you shoot the shit for 20 minutes -- in banking interviews you're asked technical finance questions) and often make laterals take a modeling test, where you're expected to demonstrate at least some modeling ability. Of course these skills are learnable, but for most people, even smart people, it will take a significant investment of time (on top of an already demanding job) and some luck. This idea that anyone at a V10 can make the transfer after getting a few years of deal experience from the legal side is just not true. And why spend a few years likely miserable as a corporate M&A associate if the goal is just to go into banking down the road? If the goal is to make that transition, better to get the JD/MBA or just make the jump straight out of law school.

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

4. In banking, lifestyle actually improves. That is not true in law. Everyone will tell you that nobody works harder than partners. That is not the case for MDs. And while there are exceptions, it is generally the case that MDs have it better than VPs, VPs have it better than Associates, and Associates have it better than Analysts. Everyone is working hard, but you generally can claim more control over your life as you climb the ladder. That is not the case in law, where the mid-levels work harder than junior associates and partners work harder than anyone. So if you're interested in having some semblance of a life (you may not think this is important to you -- trust me, you will realize quickly that it is), banking in the long term is a better bet than M&A law.

5. Little addressed here is that the work in M&A banking is better than M&A law from a substantive work standpoint. Both involve bitch work but it's generally better to understand the business and negotiate the business terms than to go back and forth with the other side about the language in the merger agreement. My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work. Banking has plenty of bitch work too and also isn't always interesting, but I think few people would say that being an M&A lawyer is more interesting or a better job on a substantive level. Maybe it's just a matter of taste/preference, but there's a reason M&A lawyers are trying to become bankers whereas the reverse almost never happens.

Anyway, I appreciate that this is a "slanted" view, but it is very hard for me to see what the upside of doing M&A law vs. banking would be, unless you just *like* practicing corporate law more than investment banking. I guess there are people who fall in that category but I find it hard to understand.

Understand that it's not as "easy" as some say to master modeling/financials, but what's your opinion on being able to grasp them well enough in a weekend or two to crush interviews. Assuming some business background, of course.

Are banks not as desperate as law firms for bodies rn? Do you have any idea of the current market for 3L hires or the IB incoming associate market generally?

It's not something you could "master in a weekend or two to crush interviews," especially not if they actually want you to take a modeling test. Read the guides on Wall Street Oasis and give yourself a couple months to prepare. It's probably helpful if you have a friend on the inside who can guide you/give advice.

It could be that banks are eager to hire people now given the state of the markets. But I'm not so sure that they're "desperate" to hire lawyers who don't have Excel skills / can model. I'm not sure what the current market is like.

[Anonymous User]

Posted earlier about M&A banking being better than M&A law across a number of dimensions and got a few replies that I want to address here:

1. I have a had time believing the poster who said he, as a lawyer, models in Excel. Maybe lawyers occasionally use Excel to organize some data or whatnot, but lawyers just are not modeling in any meaningful sense. There is no lawyer who is spending his time building a three-statement financial model, projecting financials, building a DCF, running sensitivity analysis, etc. That's just not what lawyers are paid to do or trained to do. So I would not believe anyone on here claiming that they're modeling or doing anything really sophisticated in Excel at their law firm. Maybe you sometimes have to review a bankers' model (though even that is hard to imagine), but I can't imagine any lawyer taking on a meaningful role in doing any kind of financial analysis.

2. Yes, modeling can be learned, but people posting it on here are making it sound like it's the easiest thing in the world for lawyers to learn how to model and transfer over to investment banking because banks are supposedly "desperate." I know people have made the transition, but I just don't think it's as easy as people are claiming. Banks still want people who know stuff about finance and who can model. This is why they give technical interviews (not like law firm interviews where you shoot the shit for 20 minutes -- in banking interviews you're asked technical finance questions) and often make laterals take a modeling test, where you're expected to demonstrate at least some modeling ability. Of course these skills are learnable, but for most people, even smart people, it will take a significant investment of time (on top of an already demanding job) and some luck. This idea that anyone at a V10 can make the transfer after getting a few years of deal experience from the legal side is just not true. And why spend a few years likely miserable as a corporate M&A associate if the goal is just to go into banking down the road? If the goal is to make that transition, better to get the JD/MBA or just make the jump straight out of law school.

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

4. In banking, lifestyle actually improves. That is not true in law. Everyone will tell you that nobody works harder than partners. That is not the case for MDs. And while there are exceptions, it is generally the case that MDs have it better than VPs, VPs have it better than Associates, and Associates have it better than Analysts. Everyone is working hard, but you generally can claim more control over your life as you climb the ladder. That is not the case in law, where the mid-levels work harder than junior associates and partners work harder than anyone. So if you're interested in having some semblance of a life (you may not think this is important to you -- trust me, you will realize quickly that it is), banking in the long term is a better bet than M&A law.

5. Little addressed here is that the work in M&A banking is better than M&A law from a substantive work standpoint. Both involve bitch work but it's generally better to understand the business and negotiate the business terms than to go back and forth with the other side about the language in the merger agreement. My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work. Banking has plenty of bitch work too and also isn't always interesting, but I think few people would say that being an M&A lawyer is more interesting or a better job on a substantive level. Maybe it's just a matter of taste/preference, but there's a reason M&A lawyers are trying to become bankers whereas the reverse almost never happens.

Anyway, I appreciate that this is a "slanted" view, but it is very hard for me to see what the upside of doing M&A law vs. banking would be, unless you just *like* practicing corporate law more than investment banking. I guess there are people who fall in that category but I find it hard to understand.

Understand that it's not as "easy" as some say to master modeling/financials, but what's your opinion on being able to grasp them well enough in a weekend or two to crush interviews. Assuming some business background, of course.

Are banks not as desperate as law firms for bodies rn? Do you have any idea of the current market for 3L hires or the IB incoming associate market generally?

It's not something you could "master in a weekend or two to crush interviews," especially not if they actually want you to take a modeling test. Read the guides on Wall Street Oasis and give yourself a couple months to prepare. It's probably helpful if you have a friend on the inside who can guide you/give advice.

It could be that banks are eager to hire people now given the state of the markets. But I'm not so sure that they're "desperate" to hire lawyers who don't have Excel skills / can model. I'm not sure what the current market is like.

So then in your opinion, it's too late for this 3L class to break in and the focus should be on developing these skills for a potential lateral after firm experience. Or am I missing something and IB recruiting is less structured than legal (where they basically only hire in the late summer/fall)?

[Anonymous User]

As part of the banking analyst—>law school crew, I can tell you that anybody who scores >165 on the LSAT or maintains a LS GPA >3.5 is easily capable of doing the financial modeling that IB requires. (That’s not to say it won’t take some time to learn it.)

[Anonymous User]

I took a few MBA classes in LS and they were FAR easier than law classes. It was well known that law students got As bc they were more studious than the MBA kids. Not at all a dig on MBA kids, I'm sure they get great utility from a two year networking sesh, but the idea that they are more hardworking....

[Anonymous User]

As part of the banking analyst—>law school crew, I can tell you that anybody who scores >165 on the LSAT or maintains a LS GPA >3.5 is easily capable of doing the financial modeling that IB requires. (That’s not to say it won’t take some time to learn it.)

I agree that the skills are eminently learnable. I’m just saying that it actually takes some study/practice/time. Unless your interviewer isn’t interested in asking any real technical questions and you don’t get a modeling test, it’s not something you can prepare for in a week or two. Give yourself months.

Btw, earlier I said to check the guides on WSO but I meant Breaking Into Wall Street. Those are the interview guides that a lot of MBA students use. Not sure where to go for modeling resources but I bet WSO and BIWS (and Google) can point you in the right direction.

No idea really on how structured post-LS banking recruiting is. It may be worth networking to find out. I’m not sure banks would be interested in hiring someone straight out of LS who didn’t complete a summer internship, but you can find out by putting out feelers/networking. The other way to make the transition would be to try to do really well at your firm, work closely with bankers (in M&A or, better still, restructuring), actually get to know them/network, find time to develop the basic finance/modeling skills, and then try to make the jump after maybe 2 years.

If you do restructuring and are really good, another option you could explore after 2 or more years would be to go to a credit fund. It’s a rare move but people have done it and some would say it’s a better gig than banking, which, though better overall than corporate law, is often romanticized on these threads.

[Anonymous User]

I took a few MBA classes in LS and they were FAR easier than law classes. It was well known that law students got As bc they were more studious than the MBA kids. Not at all a dig on MBA kids, I'm sure they get great utility from a two year networking sesh, but the idea that they are more hardworking....

JD-MBA here. It's because top business schools have non-grade disclosure (except MIT Sloan I think) and so no need to care about classes. Employers can't ask about your grades. So better to spend time on recruiting & "networking" (aka party w/classmates for 2 years before returning to real life).

[Anonymous User]

Posted earlier about M&A banking being better than M&A law across a number of dimensions and got a few replies that I want to address here:

1. I have a had time believing the poster who said he, as a lawyer, models in Excel. Maybe lawyers occasionally use Excel to organize some data or whatnot, but lawyers just are not modeling in any meaningful sense. There is no lawyer who is spending his time building a three-statement financial model, projecting financials, building a DCF, running sensitivity analysis, etc. That's just not what lawyers are paid to do or trained to do. So I would not believe anyone on here claiming that they're modeling or doing anything really sophisticated in Excel at their law firm. Maybe you sometimes have to review a bankers' model (though even that is hard to imagine), but I can't imagine any lawyer taking on a meaningful role in doing any kind of financial analysis.

2. Yes, modeling can be learned, but people posting it on here are making it sound like it's the easiest thing in the world for lawyers to learn how to model and transfer over to investment banking because banks are supposedly "desperate." I know people have made the transition, but I just don't think it's as easy as people are claiming. Banks still want people who know stuff about finance and who can model. This is why they give technical interviews (not like law firm interviews where you shoot the shit for 20 minutes -- in banking interviews you're asked technical finance questions) and often make laterals take a modeling test, where you're expected to demonstrate at least some modeling ability. Of course these skills are learnable, but for most people, even smart people, it will take a significant investment of time (on top of an already demanding job) and some luck. This idea that anyone at a V10 can make the transfer after getting a few years of deal experience from the legal side is just not true. And why spend a few years likely miserable as a corporate M&A associate if the goal is just to go into banking down the road? If the goal is to make that transition, better to get the JD/MBA or just make the jump straight out of law school.

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

4. In banking, lifestyle actually improves. That is not true in law. Everyone will tell you that nobody works harder than partners. That is not the case for MDs. And while there are exceptions, it is generally the case that MDs have it better than VPs, VPs have it better than Associates, and Associates have it better than Analysts. Everyone is working hard, but you generally can claim more control over your life as you climb the ladder. That is not the case in law, where the mid-levels work harder than junior associates and partners work harder than anyone. So if you're interested in having some semblance of a life (you may not think this is important to you -- trust me, you will realize quickly that it is), banking in the long term is a better bet than M&A law.

5. Little addressed here is that the work in M&A banking is better than M&A law from a substantive work standpoint. Both involve bitch work but it's generally better to understand the business and negotiate the business terms than to go back and forth with the other side about the language in the merger agreement. My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work. Banking has plenty of bitch work too and also isn't always interesting, but I think few people would say that being an M&A lawyer is more interesting or a better job on a substantive level. Maybe it's just a matter of taste/preference, but there's a reason M&A lawyers are trying to become bankers whereas the reverse almost never happens.

Anyway, I appreciate that this is a "slanted" view, but it is very hard for me to see what the upside of doing M&A law vs. banking would be, unless you just *like* practicing corporate law more than investment banking. I guess there are people who fall in that category but I find it hard to understand.

Did something happen to you in biglaw m&a? I really didn’t mean that in an insulting way. I am very curious how someone can write this long just to show m&a banking is better than m&a lawyer. I mean in the end they are both doing grunt work, earning about the same money, right?

Also, what is your background? Did you actually work in biglaw and then transitioned into banking?

[Anonymous User]

Posted earlier about M&A banking being better than M&A law across a number of dimensions and got a few replies that I want to address here:

1. I have a had time believing the poster who said he, as a lawyer, models in Excel. Maybe lawyers occasionally use Excel to organize some data or whatnot, but lawyers just are not modeling in any meaningful sense. There is no lawyer who is spending his time building a three-statement financial model, projecting financials, building a DCF, running sensitivity analysis, etc. That's just not what lawyers are paid to do or trained to do. So I would not believe anyone on here claiming that they're modeling or doing anything really sophisticated in Excel at their law firm. Maybe you sometimes have to review a bankers' model (though even that is hard to imagine), but I can't imagine any lawyer taking on a meaningful role in doing any kind of financial analysis.

2. Yes, modeling can be learned, but people posting it on here are making it sound like it's the easiest thing in the world for lawyers to learn how to model and transfer over to investment banking because banks are supposedly "desperate." I know people have made the transition, but I just don't think it's as easy as people are claiming. Banks still want people who know stuff about finance and who can model. This is why they give technical interviews (not like law firm interviews where you shoot the shit for 20 minutes -- in banking interviews you're asked technical finance questions) and often make laterals take a modeling test, where you're expected to demonstrate at least some modeling ability. Of course these skills are learnable, but for most people, even smart people, it will take a significant investment of time (on top of an already demanding job) and some luck. This idea that anyone at a V10 can make the transfer after getting a few years of deal experience from the legal side is just not true. And why spend a few years likely miserable as a corporate M&A associate if the goal is just to go into banking down the road? If the goal is to make that transition, better to get the JD/MBA or just make the jump straight out of law school.

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

4. In banking, lifestyle actually improves. That is not true in law. Everyone will tell you that nobody works harder than partners. That is not the case for MDs. And while there are exceptions, it is generally the case that MDs have it better than VPs, VPs have it better than Associates, and Associates have it better than Analysts. Everyone is working hard, but you generally can claim more control over your life as you climb the ladder. That is not the case in law, where the mid-levels work harder than junior associates and partners work harder than anyone. So if you're interested in having some semblance of a life (you may not think this is important to you -- trust me, you will realize quickly that it is), banking in the long term is a better bet than M&A law.

5. Little addressed here is that the work in M&A banking is better than M&A law from a substantive work standpoint. Both involve bitch work but it's generally better to understand the business and negotiate the business terms than to go back and forth with the other side about the language in the merger agreement. My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work. Banking has plenty of bitch work too and also isn't always interesting, but I think few people would say that being an M&A lawyer is more interesting or a better job on a substantive level. Maybe it's just a matter of taste/preference, but there's a reason M&A lawyers are trying to become bankers whereas the reverse almost never happens.

Anyway, I appreciate that this is a "slanted" view, but it is very hard for me to see what the upside of doing M&A law vs. banking would be, unless you just *like* practicing corporate law more than investment banking. I guess there are people who fall in that category but I find it hard to understand.

Did something happen to you in biglaw m&a? I really didn’t mean that in an insulting way. I am very curious how someone can write this long just to show m&a banking is better than m&a lawyer. I mean in the end they are both doing grunt work, earning about the same money, right?

Also, what is your background? Did you actually work in biglaw and then transitioned into banking?

Are you sure you even read his/her post? You are not earning about the same money...By third year in banking, you are earning 130k-230k more than your third year big law associate. Idk maybe in your world that equals "earning about the same money"

[Anonymous User]

Posted earlier about M&A banking being better than M&A law across a number of dimensions and got a few replies that I want to address here:

1. I have a had time believing the poster who said he, as a lawyer, models in Excel. Maybe lawyers occasionally use Excel to organize some data or whatnot, but lawyers just are not modeling in any meaningful sense. There is no lawyer who is spending his time building a three-statement financial model, projecting financials, building a DCF, running sensitivity analysis, etc. That's just not what lawyers are paid to do or trained to do. So I would not believe anyone on here claiming that they're modeling or doing anything really sophisticated in Excel at their law firm. Maybe you sometimes have to review a bankers' model (though even that is hard to imagine), but I can't imagine any lawyer taking on a meaningful role in doing any kind of financial analysis.

2. Yes, modeling can be learned, but people posting it on here are making it sound like it's the easiest thing in the world for lawyers to learn how to model and transfer over to investment banking because banks are supposedly "desperate." I know people have made the transition, but I just don't think it's as easy as people are claiming. Banks still want people who know stuff about finance and who can model. This is why they give technical interviews (not like law firm interviews where you shoot the shit for 20 minutes -- in banking interviews you're asked technical finance questions) and often make laterals take a modeling test, where you're expected to demonstrate at least some modeling ability. Of course these skills are learnable, but for most people, even smart people, it will take a significant investment of time (on top of an already demanding job) and some luck. This idea that anyone at a V10 can make the transfer after getting a few years of deal experience from the legal side is just not true. And why spend a few years likely miserable as a corporate M&A associate if the goal is just to go into banking down the road? If the goal is to make that transition, better to get the JD/MBA or just make the jump straight out of law school.

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

4. In banking, lifestyle actually improves. That is not true in law. Everyone will tell you that nobody works harder than partners. That is not the case for MDs. And while there are exceptions, it is generally the case that MDs have it better than VPs, VPs have it better than Associates, and Associates have it better than Analysts. Everyone is working hard, but you generally can claim more control over your life as you climb the ladder. That is not the case in law, where the mid-levels work harder than junior associates and partners work harder than anyone. So if you're interested in having some semblance of a life (you may not think this is important to you -- trust me, you will realize quickly that it is), banking in the long term is a better bet than M&A law.

5. Little addressed here is that the work in M&A banking is better than M&A law from a substantive work standpoint. Both involve bitch work but it's generally better to understand the business and negotiate the business terms than to go back and forth with the other side about the language in the merger agreement. My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work. Banking has plenty of bitch work too and also isn't always interesting, but I think few people would say that being an M&A lawyer is more interesting or a better job on a substantive level. Maybe it's just a matter of taste/preference, but there's a reason M&A lawyers are trying to become bankers whereas the reverse almost never happens.

Anyway, I appreciate that this is a "slanted" view, but it is very hard for me to see what the upside of doing M&A law vs. banking would be, unless you just *like* practicing corporate law more than investment banking. I guess there are people who fall in that category but I find it hard to understand.

Did something happen to you in biglaw m&a? I really didn’t mean that in an insulting way. I am very curious how someone can write this long just to show m&a banking is better than m&a lawyer. I mean in the end they are both doing grunt work, earning about the same money, right?

Also, what is your background? Did you actually work in biglaw and then transitioned into banking?

I don’t want to get into my background but suffice it to say that I have seen both what corporate law practice is like and what investment banking is like. I will confess that I had a bad experience in corporate big law, albeit not in an M&A group but I have friends who have done it. Didn’t mean to come off as aggressive in my post.

Both do involve grunt work but from what I have seen M&A corporate practice in the junior years has really very little substantive work/analysis whereas I do think you could expect to get more of that in banking. And the pay is not the same—banking is significantly more for average and above average performers. See my earlier post.

That plus better exit options and better lifestyle over time makes the choice a no-brainer in my view, to the extent someone is actually choosing between the two. I will concede that my view may be colored by my unique experiences so maybe take with a grain of salt if you’d like.

[thisismytlsuername]

...

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

...

This is technically true but misleading. First, you're ignoring that a first year biglaw associate can be 24, and I'd say that probably the large majority are under 25. Very few i-banking associates are under 25 -- they probably average closer to 28. So biglaw associates start making this money much younger and can get a head start on making outsized earnings (setting aside pre-MBA work).

Second, and more importantly, biglaw comp is straight cash, homey. There's a big difference between $220k cash all in and $150k cash plus a bunch of deferred comp/equity. And those deferred portions just get bigger as you get more senior. My final year in biglaw I took home around $550k cash. My similarly-senior i-banking friend took home around $400k cash plus $400k in stock that vests over 4 years. Yeah, that's a bigger number, but I know which one I would prefer.

[Anonymous User]

...

3. Banker pay is significantly better for similarly situated associates and has more upside potential. Under the current Cravath scale, a first year associate all-in will make something like $220k. According to Wall Street Oasis, a 1st year associate in banking has a $150k base and can earn a bonus from $75k (for poor performance) to $225k (for stellar performance). So even if you were pretty bad, you'd still earn about as much as a first year associate. But if you were average or even good, you'd make significantly more. I interned at a bank and was told that a base salary equal to 100% of bonus was considered normal. So a typical first year associate in banking will make $300k in their first year as compared with $220k for a law firm associate -- that is a significant difference. But the differences magnify over time b/c banking associates generally get a $25k raise in their base salaries each year, which then also gets factored into their bonus. By the time you're a third year associate in banking, you're looking at a base salary of $200k and a bonus (for average performance) of $200k, totaling $400k in earnings, as compared with (under the current scale) $270k for a third year law firm associate. That's a $130k difference, which is huge. And if you're actually a high performer in banking, you're looking at more like $500k as a third year associate, whereas law firms don't give out bigger bonuses based on individual merit. So while it is true there is more variability in banking, the scale is higher for everyone with the potential to make almost 2x as much if you're a top performer.

...

This is technically true but misleading. First, you're ignoring that a first year biglaw associate can be 24, and I'd say that probably the large majority are under 25. Very few i-banking associates are under 25 -- they probably average closer to 28. So biglaw associates start making this money much younger and can get a head start on making outsized earnings (setting aside pre-MBA work).

Second, and more importantly, biglaw comp is straight cash, homey. There's a big difference between $220k cash all in and $150k cash plus a bunch of deferred comp/equity. And those deferred portions just get bigger as you get more senior. My final year in biglaw I took home around $550k cash. My similarly-senior i-banking friend took home around $400k cash plus $400k in stock that vests over 4 years. Yeah, that's a bigger number, but I know which one I would prefer.

Fair point

[Anonymous User]

Here are my thoughts (for the more special among you, personal thoughts =/= objective truth)

1) Being an IBD associate is not an easy job. It's tough.

2) IBD associates get paid more than biglaw associates. At the extreme end a top associate could make 100K more than same class year biglaw, but average is around 30k or 40k more.

3) A bank probably won't let you be an associate for 5+ years without making VP, whereas you can hang around biglaw longer and keep earning.

4) IBD at its heart is a sales job. Most IBD associates don't have the academic chops to get into biglaw, and most people in biglaw would struggle in IBD recruiting. You can see the difference between biglaw callbacks with 50% offer rates, versus superdays with 10% offer rates. To get IBD may require impressing people with who you are, your story, and how you present yourself. Why? Because it's a sales job. It's true that many people with terrible personalities grind and practice/rehearse for those interviews, I concede that, but it's still different from your typical conversational biglaw interview.

5) You don't see IBD people jumping to biglaw because they don't have law degrees. An analyst could do it because when you're 24 you have the optionality to do whatever, but it doesn't make much sense for an associate.

6) Sometimes the whining and negativity is too much to take. In IBD everything has to get done right away, and with no billable hour you'll never be rewarded for inefficiency. Most people at T14s would hate it so much. The level of envy w.r.t. financial services, how much better clients have it, how much better life would have been if they'd gone to Harvard undergrad, etc. is so tiring and fantastical.

Being a lawyer at a big firm in a big city, working on M&A or big litigation matters is a pretty prestigious and high paying gig. Yet people cry themselves to sleep because they're not a billionare hedge fund manager. Which I can assure you was an unlikely outcome even if you had a 4.0 at wharton or harvard and went straight to IBD.

[Ultramar vistas]

My understanding is that the first few years in corporate M&A work involves fixing signature pages and doing mind-numbing due diligence, which is not fun or interesting work.

IDGAF about any of this thread except to note that this is just flatly incorrect, unless you suck.

The first two years involve a decent amount of “mind-numbing” due diligence (aka chillables, the easiest part of your legal career) although tbh, most data rooms don’t suck your soul that badly and specialists do 70% of the work. Writing a diligence memorandum is not hard. Fixing signature pages is shorthand for boring admin work that we can all agree is tedious but no more or less tedious than changing 75 pages of a slide deck to reflect some tweak. By midway through your third year, if you’re even vaguely competent, you’re actually going to feel pretty managerial, because your job literally starts to resemble a Project Manager more than anything else. It’s not boring, it is extremely stressful.

Your other points may well be correct (although the financial stuff just seems overblown, when I compare those figures to real life friends in banking - maybe part of that is that ONLY I-bankers are making that much, whereas all the other banking specialties are less than biglaw, whereas in biglaw M&A and all specialists are all making the same?) but this one is not accurate.

[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.

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

i'd prefer to answer general questions in this thread so that other posters/lurkers can benefit. looks like there's at least one other IB->law school person who can comment, too, which might help you. (and I'm selfishly interested in hearing about his/her experience, since there aren't a ton of us.)

for personal stuff, though, happy to send a PM

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have additional insight on the mechanics of bulge brackets recruiting 3L's, especially with regard to timeline and finding these opportunities without having summered there (e.g., website cold apply vs. networking to get ppl to submit your resume)?

And what about location - how much worse are the odds if you don't want to be in NYC (not saying I wouldn't go there, just would prioritize LA or TX)?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have additional insight on the mechanics of bulge brackets recruiting 3L's, especially with regard to timeline and finding these opportunities without having summered there (e.g., website cold apply vs. networking to get ppl to submit your resume)?

And what about location - how much worse are the odds if you don't want to be in NYC (not saying I wouldn't go there, just would prioritize LA or TX)?

Harvard and Columbia have formal IBD infosessions and on-campus interviewing for JDs, dunno about other schools.

if yours doesn't, I would speak to career services. assuming you're at a T14, your MBA program likely has a formal process (most, if not all, of the MBA programs I can think of have IBD recruiting), and law students might be able to use use those resources. when I interviewed JDs for IBD, we just lumped them into the same superday process at the MBAs

regarding non-NYC---would probably be worse, there are fewer spots

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have additional insight on the mechanics of bulge brackets recruiting 3L's, especially with regard to timeline and finding these opportunities without having summered there (e.g., website cold apply vs. networking to get ppl to submit your resume)?

And what about location - how much worse are the odds if you don't want to be in NYC (not saying I wouldn't go there, just would prioritize LA or TX)?

Harvard and Columbia have formal IBD infosessions and on-campus interviewing for JDs, dunno about other schools.

if yours doesn't, I would speak to career services. assuming you're at a T14, your MBA program likely has a formal process (most, if not all, of the MBA programs I can think of have IBD recruiting), and law students might be able to use use those resources. when I interviewed JDs for IBD, we just lumped them into the same superday process at the MBAs

regarding non-NYC---would probably be worse, there are fewer spots

Superdays for summers and full time are different though, correct? Do you know when the full time ones generally take place?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have additional insight on the mechanics of bulge brackets recruiting 3L's, especially with regard to timeline and finding these opportunities without having summered there (e.g., website cold apply vs. networking to get ppl to submit your resume)?

And what about location - how much worse are the odds if you don't want to be in NYC (not saying I wouldn't go there, just would prioritize LA or TX)?

Harvard and Columbia have formal IBD infosessions and on-campus interviewing for JDs, dunno about other schools.

if yours doesn't, I would speak to career services. assuming you're at a T14, your MBA program likely has a formal process (most, if not all, of the MBA programs I can think of have IBD recruiting), and law students might be able to use use those resources. when I interviewed JDs for IBD, we just lumped them into the same superday process at the MBAs

regarding non-NYC---would probably be worse, there are fewer spots

HBS does not let law students use same resources. And I’d be very surprised if other top business schools do as well…that’s the whole point of the MBA program (along w/networking opportunities with peers).

Frankly your chances from law school -> banking, especially without the summer internship is close to 0. Even if you went to HLS, chances aren’t good. We’re talking single digits per year… and it’s not entirely due to self-selection.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have additional insight on the mechanics of bulge brackets recruiting 3L's, especially with regard to timeline and finding these opportunities without having summered there (e.g., website cold apply vs. networking to get ppl to submit your resume)?

And what about location - how much worse are the odds if you don't want to be in NYC (not saying I wouldn't go there, just would prioritize LA or TX)?

Harvard and Columbia have formal IBD infosessions and on-campus interviewing for JDs, dunno about other schools.

if yours doesn't, I would speak to career services. assuming you're at a T14, your MBA program likely has a formal process (most, if not all, of the MBA programs I can think of have IBD recruiting), and law students might be able to use use those resources. when I interviewed JDs for IBD, we just lumped them into the same superday process at the MBAs

regarding non-NYC---would probably be worse, there are fewer spots

HBS does not let law students use same resources. And I’d be very surprised if other top business schools do as well…that’s the whole point of the MBA program (along w/networking opportunities with peers).

Frankly your chances from law school -> banking, especially without the summer internship is close to 0. Even if you went to HLS, chances aren’t good. We’re talking single digits per year… and it’s not entirely due to self-selection.

Same at my non-HYS t14, we can't even access their job boards. I'm trying to realistically gauge chances and whether I should bother to apply this cycle or focus on building finance skills and networking for a lateral after some firm experience.

Some are saying it's easy vs. others are saying next to impossible... And similarly conflicting takes on whether a lateral to banking with ~3/4 years experience comes in as an associate (making the proposition much worse) or VP... My gauge on this issue is that VP is quite possible, but that's just after a quick linkedin search of ppl who have left my firm after x years.

I would be greatly appreciative if someone could provide some clarity.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have additional insight on the mechanics of bulge brackets recruiting 3L's, especially with regard to timeline and finding these opportunities without having summered there (e.g., website cold apply vs. networking to get ppl to submit your resume)?

And what about location - how much worse are the odds if you don't want to be in NYC (not saying I wouldn't go there, just would prioritize LA or TX)?

Harvard and Columbia have formal IBD infosessions and on-campus interviewing for JDs, dunno about other schools.

if yours doesn't, I would speak to career services. assuming you're at a T14, your MBA program likely has a formal process (most, if not all, of the MBA programs I can think of have IBD recruiting), and law students might be able to use use those resources. when I interviewed JDs for IBD, we just lumped them into the same superday process at the MBAs

regarding non-NYC---would probably be worse, there are fewer spots

HBS does not let law students use same resources. And I’d be very surprised if other top business schools do as well…that’s the whole point of the MBA program (along w/networking opportunities with peers).

Frankly your chances from law school -> banking, especially without the summer internship is close to 0. Even if you went to HLS, chances aren’t good. We’re talking single digits per year… and it’s not entirely due to self-selection.

Same at my non-HYS t14, we can't even access their job boards. I'm trying to realistically gauge chances and whether I should bother to apply this cycle or focus on building finance skills and networking for a lateral after some firm experience.

Some are saying it's easy vs. others are saying next to impossible... And similarly conflicting takes on whether a lateral to banking with ~3/4 years experience comes in as an associate (making the proposition much worse) or VP... My gauge on this issue is that VP is quite possible, but that's just after a quick linkedin search of ppl who have left my firm after x years.

I would be greatly appreciative if someone could provide some clarity.

Let me assure you that it is not easy to go directly from law school to IB. If you have really solid prior business experience maybe, but these aren't places that just hire any smart-seeming law student. These are places that want people who can do some real finance work/modeling and have demonstrated that interest and ability through an IB internship. Most law students who go into IB do it by getting a JD/MBA and then recruit into banking through a summer internship or try to make the move after practicing for 3 years or so. I only know a handful who did it without going through that process, and I believe all of them had solid business/finance experience before law school. I also believe that all those people interned at investment banks as 2Ls and did not try to recruit as 3Ls. I agree with the above poster that it would be extremely unusual for a bank to hire someone straight out of law school who hadn't completed an internship. Everyone else in your class would be someone who interned at the bank last summer and actually earned their offer (unlike law firms, banks don't give an offer to every person who interns).

Whether you come in as an associate or a VP will depend a lot on the bank and the opportunity and your prior experience. I'm sure people have come in as a VP but I think that's rare if you're looking to make the move after only 3-4 years. People in IB are usually associates for 3-4 years before being promoted to VP so it would seem strange to have a lawyer with no banking experience come in at that level.

[Anonymous User]

Same at my non-HYS t14, we can't even access their job boards. I'm trying to realistically gauge chances and whether I should bother to apply this cycle or focus on building finance skills and networking for a lateral after some firm experience.

Some are saying it's easy vs. others are saying next to impossible... And similarly conflicting takes on whether a lateral to banking with ~3/4 years experience comes in as an associate (making the proposition much worse) or VP... My gauge on this issue is that VP is quite possible, but that's just after a quick linkedin search of ppl who have left my firm after x years.

I would be greatly appreciative if someone could provide some clarity.

my suggestion to "leverage MBA resources" wasn't meant to be read as "apply through the MBA job boards" lmao. of course you can't do that, would not have expected it. it was like, figure out who's in the MBA Investment Banking Club so you can connect with them, get a list of alumni at various banks, find out who the recruiting contacts are for various investment banks and when the on-campus infosessions are, etc

this is all stuff that the actual MBAs do. even at Wharton etc - the "targets", they're not interviewing via completely cold resume drops. we got the stack of resumes, but we generally knew who the various applicants are because they were at our cocktail hours, office visits, etc. it's part of the process

don't think the above is a ton of work (it's what the MBAs do, it's what I did as an undergrad), see no reason not to try (you're a 3L who doesn't want to be a lawyer, what else are you gonna do), and think you have decent odds---not as good as a similarly-situated MBA, but worth making the effort. at worst, you make contacts you can use when you're tying to lateral.

RE: VP vs ASO. this is negotiated, but I don't think the goal should be to wait 3-4 years before lateraling. you should be trying to come over ASAP, leaving as a junior BigLaw associate and coming in as a junior IBD associate.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have additional insight on the mechanics of bulge brackets recruiting 3L's, especially with regard to timeline and finding these opportunities without having summered there (e.g., website cold apply vs. networking to get ppl to submit your resume)?

And what about location - how much worse are the odds if you don't want to be in NYC (not saying I wouldn't go there, just would prioritize LA or TX)?

Harvard and Columbia have formal IBD infosessions and on-campus interviewing for JDs, dunno about other schools.

if yours doesn't, I would speak to career services. assuming you're at a T14, your MBA program likely has a formal process (most, if not all, of the MBA programs I can think of have IBD recruiting), and law students might be able to use use those resources. when I interviewed JDs for IBD, we just lumped them into the same superday process at the MBAs

regarding non-NYC---would probably be worse, there are fewer spots

HBS does not let law students use same resources. And I’d be very surprised if other top business schools do as well…that’s the whole point of the MBA program (along w/networking opportunities with peers).

Frankly your chances from law school -> banking, especially without the summer internship is close to 0. Even if you went to HLS, chances aren’t good. We’re talking single digits per year… and it’s not entirely due to self-selection.

Same at my non-HYS t14, we can't even access their job boards. I'm trying to realistically gauge chances and whether I should bother to apply this cycle or focus on building finance skills and networking for a lateral after some firm experience.

Some are saying it's easy vs. others are saying next to impossible... And similarly conflicting takes on whether a lateral to banking with ~3/4 years experience comes in as an associate (making the proposition much worse) or VP... My gauge on this issue is that VP is quite possible, but that's just after a quick linkedin search of ppl who have left my firm after x years.

I would be greatly appreciative if someone could provide some clarity.

Let me assure you that it is not easy to go directly from law school to IB. If you have really solid prior business experience maybe, but these aren't places that just hire any smart-seeming law student. These are places that want people who can do some real finance work/modeling and have demonstrated that interest and ability through an IB internship. Most law students who go into IB do it by getting a JD/MBA and then recruit into banking through a summer internship or try to make the move after practicing for 3 years or so. I only know a handful who did it without going through that process, and I believe all of them had solid business/finance experience before law school. I also believe that all those people interned at investment banks as 2Ls and did not try to recruit as 3Ls. I agree with the above poster that it would be extremely unusual for a bank to hire someone straight out of law school who hadn't completed an internship. Everyone else in your class would be someone who interned at the bank last summer and actually earned their offer (unlike law firms, banks don't give an offer to every person who interns).

Whether you come in as an associate or a VP will depend a lot on the bank and the opportunity and your prior experience. I'm sure people have come in as a VP but I think that's rare if you're looking to make the move after only 3-4 years. People in IB are usually associates for 3-4 years before being promoted to VP so it would seem strange to have a lawyer with no banking experience come in at that level.

Do you have a sense of whether they come is as first/second/third year associate?

By nature of banks not auto offering doesn’t that also create some opportunity for straight to full time hires (without a summer)? I can’t imagine the yield is perfect or is the idea that they aren’t going to fill those few spots with law students…