Most lucrative path starting in corporate at a v10 Forum

[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…

My dude I don’t think you have a firm grasp on the banking hiring process. It’s not like big law where more or less 100% of people get offers. In banking, it typically ranges from 40-70% (varies by group, bank, etc) and banks build this into their hiring model.

This is also why it’s virtually unheard of for people to get banking jobs w/o the internship (2nd year MBAs included). The banking summer isn’t spent schmoozing like in big law. You’re genuinely working banking hours and need to impress to get that offer.

I also don’t want to shit all over your dreams but banking will probably never happen for you (and that’s perfectly ok!). By all means, get your technicals in shape & spend time networking. But banks get more from increasing recruiting efforts at their target schools than trying to hire a law student, or a practicing lawyer. I’m a JD-MBA and was at GS/JPM/MS so I have insight into this.

[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"

I read it and I don’t think the numbers are accurate. Those number are in line with what PE associates are making.

Just go look at IB comp post on WSO and compare the numbers with biglaw. You should probably learn how to fact check.

[Anonymous User]

[quote="Anonymous User" post_id=10492562 time=1634013959 user_id=45852]
[quote="Anonymous User" post_id=10492559 time=1634011530 user_id=45852]
[quote="Anonymous User" post_id=10492549 time=1634005213 user_id=45852]
[quote="Anonymous User" post_id=10492545 time=1634001514 user_id=45852]
[quote="Anonymous User" post_id=10492542 time=1634000548 user_id=45852]
[quote="Anonymous User" post_id=10492541 time=1634000034 user_id=45852]
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)?
[/quote]

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
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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…
[/quote]
Yes but you are competing with people who did MBB for the summer, etc.

The banking class that takes the most people who didnt summer at the bank as a % of class is PJT RSSG. Half the people they take did 2 years IBD -> 2 years PE -> B school or JD/MBA with finance experience -> b school etc.

Other issue is, you are pretty late to the game if recruiting now for IBD.

Also associate comp at IBD, similar to biglaw has gone up generally across the board. There are more seats paying 175+ base than are not, and the rest are expected to follow. Bonuses for 1st years still are in the 100% range at top end. One of the banks that takes the most lawyers (Lazard) has its base at 200k for first years now.

Clawbacks are usually if you go to another bank not if you go to a client (which includes sponsors).

[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"

I read it and I don’t think the numbers are accurate. Those number are in line with what PE associates are making.

Just go look at IB comp post on WSO and compare the numbers with biglaw. You should probably learn how to fact check.

I work in banking. If anything, the numbers are underestimating current banking compensation. Many of the WSO posts are either outdated and/or wrong due to the forum being filled with college undergrads LARPing as bankers. (In that sense, it’s no different to this forum where law students are LARPing as big law attorneys)

[Anonymous User]

Even just a cursory search of B-school employment reports (Columbia has a good one, segmented by industry/role), will show you that the IB comp numbers thrown around in here are significantly over-inflated.

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/recruiter ... 222021.pdf

[Anonymous User]

Even just a cursory search of B-school employment reports (Columbia has a good one, segmented by industry/role), will show you that the IB comp numbers thrown around in here are significantly over-inflated.

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/recruiter ... 222021.pdf

…..the CBS report clearly indicates that the guaranteed compensation does not include performance bonuses. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

This line of discussion is very frustrating/tiring because it comes up every couple of months and without fail, law students who know nothing about investment banking post as if they know what the job entails, how biglaw compensation is roughly the same as ibanking (it’s not), etc. They’re so eager to justify their biglaw careerpath that they constantly try to prove people who actually know about investment banking wrong.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Even just a cursory search of B-school employment reports (Columbia has a good one, segmented by industry/role), will show you that the IB comp numbers thrown around in here are significantly over-inflated.

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/recruiter ... 222021.pdf

Not really. Most banks raised pay by $25-50k this year from that $150k base pay shown. And your numbers only capture other guaranteed compensation and not the large year-end bonuses which were over 100% of base for many bankers, especially last year.

I’m getting recruiting emails and calls from bulge brackets and executive banks offering $550-600k all-in to switch from big law.

[Anonymous User]

Even just a cursory search of B-school employment reports (Columbia has a good one, segmented by industry/role), will show you that the IB comp numbers thrown around in here are significantly over-inflated.

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/recruiter ... 222021.pdf

Not really. Most banks raised pay by $25-50k this year from that $150k base pay shown. And your numbers only capture other guaranteed compensation and not the large year-end bonuses which were over 100% of base for many bankers, especially last year.

I’m getting recruiting emails and calls from bulge brackets and executive banks offering $550-600k all-in to switch from big law.

From what type of corporate practice group? Assuming v10/nyc?

[Anonymous User]

some of these comp numbers are off

the best performing first year banking associates were bonusing at 100% of base back when base was 150k. Now that it's 175k or even 200k, I do not think you'll see first years making 350k or 400k all-in. If you wind the clock back to 2015, making 250K all-in was considered a good bonus for a 2nd year banking associate. Pay is up since then for sure, but based on what my friends make, not by 50%

Of course there are outlier banking associates making 500k+ but these are stars who perform at a VP/director level. There are also outlier biglaw 4th and 5th years getting paid beyond what most folks here think is possible.

[Anonymous User]

My dude I don’t think you have a firm grasp on the banking hiring process. It’s not like big law where more or less 100% of people get offers. In banking, it typically ranges from 40-70% (varies by group, bank, etc) and banks build this into their hiring model.

This is also why it’s virtually unheard of for people to get banking jobs w/o the internship (2nd year MBAs included). The banking summer isn’t spent schmoozing like in big law. You’re genuinely working banking hours and need to impress to get that offer.

I also don’t want to shit all over your dreams but banking will probably never happen for you (and that’s perfectly ok!). By all means, get your technicals in shape & spend time networking. But banks get more from increasing recruiting efforts at their target schools than trying to hire a law student, or a practicing lawyer. I’m a JD-MBA and was at GS/JPM/MS so I have insight into this.

"it's not like big law"
"banking will probably never happen for you"

relax dude lmao

[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…

My dude I don’t think you have a firm grasp on the banking hiring process. It’s not like big law where more or less 100% of people get offers. In banking, it typically ranges from 40-70% (varies by group, bank, etc) and banks build this into their hiring model.

This is also why it’s virtually unheard of for people to get banking jobs w/o the internship (2nd year MBAs included). The banking summer isn’t spent schmoozing like in big law. You’re genuinely working banking hours and need to impress to get that offer.

I also don’t want to shit all over your dreams but banking will probably never happen for you (and that’s perfectly ok!). By all means, get your technicals in shape & spend time networking. But banks get more from increasing recruiting efforts at their target schools than trying to hire a law student, or a practicing lawyer. I’m a JD-MBA and was at GS/JPM/MS so I have insight into this.

Thank you, I appreciate the realistic take. I'm going to network and hope to get lucky this year, but realize a lateral with experience is more likely (though still difficult). In that regard, would you be able to give me a sense of the technicals needed to come in at associate (or god willing, VP). I feel like I'm pretty close on the financial interview questions and just need to refresh that type of stuff from my MBA days. But down the road, if they are looking at me as a lateral candidate, will they want to be able to model too?

[Anonymous User]

Are finance technicals otherwise useful for a M&A/Credit lawyer? From what I saw during my summer, maybe tangentially, but not likely and definitely not necessary.

[Anonymous User]

some of these comp numbers are off

the best performing first year banking associates were bonusing at 100% of base back when base was 150k. Now that it's 175k or even 200k, I do not think you'll see first years making 350k or 400k all-in. If you wind the clock back to 2015, making 250K all-in was considered a good bonus for a 2nd year banking associate. Pay is up since then for sure, but based on what my friends make, not by 50%

Of course there are outlier banking associates making 500k+ but these are stars who perform at a VP/director level. There are also outlier biglaw 4th and 5th years getting paid beyond what most folks here think is possible.

Banks are having the same retention issues law firms are. A third year lawyer who made 235k in 2015 (185+50) now makes 322k (240+32+50). Banks are doing better financially than law firms in shortened deal processes due to billing structure. Analyst 2s are effectively getting bonuses that put them close to 250 all-in so 350 isnt that insane at associate 1 at most banks.

400k at Lazard who I understand is the only 200k asso-1 base might be a tad heavy since they have historically been known to under bonus a bit, but Centerview / PJT probably get their top bucket asso 1s around there.

Either way everyone is getting paid on the banking /legal side and my retreat to non-advisory is really biting me in the ass.

[k_moreno]

Banking is significantly more cyclical than law. It's to be expected that banking pay looks great in a boom (especially now that even MBAs prefer tech, let alone undergrads). That 100% bonus is how you know it's cyclical: they have a lot more room to cut when things go bad than law firms. I see how that doesn't help if you're a first-year law firm associate just staying to pay off loans, but certainly even law is paying much better now than anybody had reason to expect.

[Anonymous User]

Are finance technicals otherwise useful for a M&A/Credit lawyer? From what I saw during my summer, maybe tangentially, but not likely and definitely not necessary.

Understanding what working capital is can be important for M&A lawyers (I think y'all do those negotiations).

Understanding and defining EBITDA is pretty important for credit lawyers.

[anonbanker]

Generally agree with the “banker” posters here

Want to add one thing that has been brought up multiple times

Best entry path into banking BY FAR is summer hiring. This is true generally but especially for lawyers given lack of overlapping skillset

We take our summer programs incredibly seriously as a pipeline for folks who (1) gain substantive experience over that 10 weeks and (2) demonstrate they can actually last with us full-time

Put differently, your odds of coming in as a 3L directly into a name bank are practically zero

Whatever slots we have leftover, we have the luxury of taking summers who have had offers elsewhere and are looking to “up-tier”

[Anonymous User]

Generally agree with the “banker” posters here

Want to add one thing that has been brought up multiple times

Best entry path into banking BY FAR is summer hiring. This is true generally but especially for lawyers given lack of overlapping skillset

We take our summer programs incredibly seriously as a pipeline for folks who (1) gain substantive experience over that 10 weeks and (2) demonstrate they can actually last with us full-time

Put differently, your odds of coming in as a 3L directly into a name bank are practically zero

Whatever slots we have leftover, we have the luxury of taking summers who have had offers elsewhere and are looking to “up-tier”

Good to know, thank you. At your bank at least, how many years biglaw experience is optimal to line up a lateral? And do you even consider ppl with less than a year (i.e. should I start applying as soon as I start or wait a bit)?

[Anonymous User]

Generally agree with the “banker” posters here

Want to add one thing that has been brought up multiple times

Best entry path into banking BY FAR is summer hiring. This is true generally but especially for lawyers given lack of overlapping skillset

We take our summer programs incredibly seriously as a pipeline for folks who (1) gain substantive experience over that 10 weeks and (2) demonstrate they can actually last with us full-time

Put differently, your odds of coming in as a 3L directly into a name bank are practically zero

Whatever slots we have leftover, we have the luxury of taking summers who have had offers elsewhere and are looking to “up-tier”

Good to know, thank you. At your bank at least, how many years biglaw experience is optimal to line up a lateral? And do you even consider ppl with less than a year (i.e. should I start applying as soon as I start or wait a bit)?

Diff poster but at my bank, we would consider those with 3+ years of law experience. If we take any lawyers, it’s like 1-3 total in a year.

Want to emphasize something that was mentioned already but at this point in your career, you’re probably permanently off the banking track (unless you love finance so much that you’d be willing to take a pay cut and join a midtier firm). Like it’s not impossible but the odds are pretty low and not something you should plan your law career around.

[Anonymous User]

Good to know, thank you. At your bank at least, how many years biglaw experience is optimal to line up a lateral? And do you even consider ppl with less than a year (i.e. should I start applying as soon as I start or wait a bit)?

Work with recruiters to try to make the jump as soon as possible

1. Always an element of luck for a banking seat where they would consider lawyers versus rejecting out of hand. Compare this approach to MBB where your application gets processed whenever you apply. Don’t miss shots in order to apply at the “optimal time”

2. We don’t hire biglawyers for their biglaw experience. We hire for same reason we do OCI at law schools - because we desperately need bodies and if you went to a T6/T14 you could be smart and hardworking enough to take a chance on

3. Related to (2), in terms of credit your time in biglaw compresses when you jump over. I know a senior associate (5-6yrs in) who was started as an ASO2 when he moved over. Not interested in debating these edge cases where someone comes over as a VP — have never seen that myself and think it only would make sense in niche product groups versus core coverage or M&A

Also relentlessly network with ex-lawyers who managed to move over. It is a tough switch so my experience is they are receptive to paying it backwards (and it’s also banking culture to be more generous with our time vis-a-vis recruiting)

- anonbanker

[Anonymous User]

Even just a cursory search of B-school employment reports (Columbia has a good one, segmented by industry/role), will show you that the IB comp numbers thrown around in here are significantly over-inflated.

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/recruiter ... 222021.pdf

Not really. Most banks raised pay by $25-50k this year from that $150k base pay shown. And your numbers only capture other guaranteed compensation and not the large year-end bonuses which were over 100% of base for many bankers, especially last year.

I’m getting recruiting emails and calls from bulge brackets and executive banks offering $550-600k all-in to switch from big law.

From what type of corporate practice group? Assuming v10/nyc?

I do M&A in NYC at a V10. In the past month, I’ve gotten an inquiry from nearly every investment bank; they’re desperate right now. People I know with activism and takeover defense experience are getting even more recruiting messages from IBs, which makes more sense because it’s one of the least quantitative groups at a bank.

[Anonymous User]

Even just a cursory search of B-school employment reports (Columbia has a good one, segmented by industry/role), will show you that the IB comp numbers thrown around in here are significantly over-inflated.

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/recruiter ... 222021.pdf

Not really. Most banks raised pay by $25-50k this year from that $150k base pay shown. And your numbers only capture other guaranteed compensation and not the large year-end bonuses which were over 100% of base for many bankers, especially last year.

I’m getting recruiting emails and calls from bulge brackets and executive banks offering $550-600k all-in to switch from big law.

From what type of corporate practice group? Assuming v10/nyc?

I do M&A in NYC at a V10. In the past month, I’ve gotten an inquiry from nearly every investment bank; they’re desperate right now. People I know with activism and takeover defense experience are getting even more recruiting messages from IBs, which makes more sense because it’s one of the least quantitative groups at a bank.

What level are they reaching out for? Assuming some variety of associate, but curious if they've included what year you'd come in at or if anyone's pinged you for VP. Not sure how senior you are.

[GermanLawyer]

Some other stuff to think about: in IB it's considerably harder to become MD than becoming salary/equity partner in big law. Simply because there are far fewer MD spots than partner spots available each year.

VP is doable since in a good/great market environment there is a big need for bodies. However, IB is even faster to lay-off folks than Latham. That's another positive of big law: job security.

[Anonymous User]

Some other stuff to think about: in IB it's considerably harder to become MD than becoming salary/equity partner in big law. Simply because there are far fewer MD spots than partner spots available each year.

VP is doable since in a good/great market environment there is a big need for bodies. However, IB is even faster to lay-off folks than Latham. That's another positive of big law: job security.

Aren’t VP’s significantly out earning most partners in a good year. I.e., non-equity v10 or midline vault 100 partners?

[Anonymous User]

Some other stuff to think about: in IB it's considerably harder to become MD than becoming salary/equity partner in big law. Simply because there are far fewer MD spots than partner spots available each year.

VP is doable since in a good/great market environment there is a big need for bodies. However, IB is even faster to lay-off folks than Latham. That's another positive of big law: job security.

Aren’t VP’s significantly out earning most partners in a good year. I.e., non-equity v10 or midline vault 100 partners?

my one concrete datapoint from JPM/GS/MS last year (friend) was top bucket for junior VP TMT = high-$500s, with a big chunk in equity/deferred comp

the established MDs in my TMT group a few years ago, before I left for law school, were pulling like, couple mill - cash/equity/deferred comp. much closer to $1m than $10m.