Illusive Buy Side Exits Forum

[Anonymous User]

[*]

Any advice on how to be the one who makes the impossible jump? Would it be better to focus on lateraling to IB or on becoming an all-star at your firm (assuming it's one that works a lot with these buysiders)?

For PE, go to IBD. For distressed, depends on group.

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

I thought funds attorneys on the buy side we’re almost entirely limited to being desk lawyers? As a total percentage sure, but I’m curious if you think funds attorneys are better off than M&A for those mid six to seven figures roles?

Edit: in a vacuum doesn’t the funds attorney also have a worse skill set for these roles so emphasis on your point above that even if the above is true it’s self selection?

LP seats so fund of fund investing and coinvestments at like an endowment or family office. Funds attorneys are super well suited for that and much better than M&A. They touch like 50% of the investment life cycle for that.

[Anonymous User]

[*]

For PE, go to IBD. For distressed, depends on group.

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

I thought funds attorneys on the buy side we’re almost entirely limited to being desk lawyers? As a total percentage sure, but I’m curious if you think funds attorneys are better off than M&A for those mid six to seven figures roles?

Edit: in a vacuum doesn’t the funds attorney also have a worse skill set for these roles so emphasis on your point above that even if the above is true it’s self selection?

LP seats so fund of fund investing and coinvestments at like an endowment or family office. Funds attorneys are super well suited for that and much better than M&A. They touch like 50% of the investment life cycle for that.

Ahh ok, gotcha. Didn’t know there was a huge market for those exits. Why do people hate on funds exits so much then or are those LP seats similarly “unicorn” in nature?

[Anonymous User]

[*]

For PE, go to IBD. For distressed, depends on group.

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

I thought funds attorneys on the buy side we’re almost entirely limited to being desk lawyers? As a total percentage sure, but I’m curious if you think funds attorneys are better off than M&A for those mid six to seven figures roles?

Edit: in a vacuum doesn’t the funds attorney also have a worse skill set for these roles so emphasis on your point above that even if the above is true it’s self selection?

LP seats so fund of fund investing and coinvestments at like an endowment or family office. Funds attorneys are super well suited for that and much better than M&A. They touch like 50% of the investment life cycle for that.

Am I missing something but these are not the elusive buy side exits OP is asking about…?

[Anonymous User]

[*]

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

I thought funds attorneys on the buy side we’re almost entirely limited to being desk lawyers? As a total percentage sure, but I’m curious if you think funds attorneys are better off than M&A for those mid six to seven figures roles?

Edit: in a vacuum doesn’t the funds attorney also have a worse skill set for these roles so emphasis on your point above that even if the above is true it’s self selection?

LP seats so fund of fund investing and coinvestments at like an endowment or family office. Funds attorneys are super well suited for that and much better than M&A. They touch like 50% of the investment life cycle for that.

Am I missing something but these are not the elusive buy side exits OP is asking about…?

Also very interested - have heard that funds exits can be very good and have the type of comp mentioned (maybe not into 7 figs), but wondering if this contemplates an actual LP seat or just glorified legal work? Can anyone speak to the scarcity of each exit and comp differences (i.e., LP seat vs. fund legal counsel I guess?)

[Anonymous User]

[*]

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

I thought funds attorneys on the buy side we’re almost entirely limited to being desk lawyers? As a total percentage sure, but I’m curious if you think funds attorneys are better off than M&A for those mid six to seven figures roles?

Edit: in a vacuum doesn’t the funds attorney also have a worse skill set for these roles so emphasis on your point above that even if the above is true it’s self selection?

LP seats so fund of fund investing and coinvestments at like an endowment or family office. Funds attorneys are super well suited for that and much better than M&A. They touch like 50% of the investment life cycle for that.

Am I missing something but these are not the elusive buy side exits OP is asking about…?

Thats the point OP needs to specify when they just say "buyside".

Buyside contemplates a ton of fields when really serious $$$$ at multiples of what you would make on legal side in biglaw is largely MM+ private equity, VC+growth, equity and pod H/Fs, and buyout infra + RE funds.

Everyone else does well of course but no expectation of insane outperformance vs law.

[Anonymous User]

Thats the point OP needs to specify when they just say "buyside".

Buyside contemplates a ton of fields when really serious $$$$ at multiples of what you would make on legal side in biglaw is largely MM+ private equity, VC+growth, equity and pod H/Fs, and buyout infra + RE funds.

Everyone else does well of course but no expectation of insane outperformance vs law.

for what it's worth, true VC generally pays juniors pitiful comp. I had friends in pre-MBA (but post-banking) roles at decently-known funds who didn't clear $200K, including bonus. (probably higher now, but I doubt it's close to market for PE)

partly a function of the lack of value a VC associate adds (quality sourcing, not financial engineering, is far and away the most important driver of returns, and that comes from the principal's contacts), partly a function of lower AUM

most people do it to jump to an operational role at a portfolio company

[Buglaw]

Any advice on how to be the one who makes the impossible jump? Would it be better to focus on lateraling to IB or on becoming an all-star at your firm (assuming it's one that works a lot with these buysiders)?

For PE, go to IBD. For distressed, depends on group.

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

whoever said credit is nice/stable probably isn't at an elite firm. Our credit group burns through more associates than M&A by a mile. Commitment papers practice at elite credit firms is BRUTAL on the lender side.

[Anonymous User]

Any advice on how to be the one who makes the impossible jump? Would it be better to focus on lateraling to IB or on becoming an all-star at your firm (assuming it's one that works a lot with these buysiders)?

For PE, go to IBD. For distressed, depends on group.

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

whoever said credit is nice/stable probably isn't at an elite firm. Our credit group burns through more associates than M&A by a mile. Commitment papers practice at elite credit firms is BRUTAL on the lender side.

I said it and am at an elite firm. Renowned for PE M&A but also have a tier 0 credit/finance group. Might have overstepped with "nice," but stand by the proposition that credit is more stable in terms of overall deal work relative to M&A. Sure commitment papers/etc. are a drag, but volatility on the whole is way better in credit. Maybe this isn't true if your firm doesn't have a top M&A practice?

Regardless, am curious just how garbage credit exits re this thread. Some make it seem like credit work is way too legalese to be of use on the buyside while other make it seem like the proximity to finance is a natural fit. So are credit associates materially worse off than say M&A/Funds associates re luxe buyside exists?

[Buglaw]

For PE, go to IBD. For distressed, depends on group.

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

whoever said credit is nice/stable probably isn't at an elite firm. Our credit group burns through more associates than M&A by a mile. Commitment papers practice at elite credit firms is BRUTAL on the lender side.

I said it and am at an elite firm. Renowned for PE M&A but also have a tier 0 credit/finance group. Might have overstepped with "nice," but stand by the proposition that credit is more stable in terms of overall deal work relative to M&A. Sure commitment papers/etc. are a drag, but volatility on the whole is way better in credit. Maybe this isn't true if your firm doesn't have a top M&A practice?

Regardless, am curious just how garbage credit exits re this thread. Some make it seem like credit work is way too legalese to be of use on the buyside while other make it seem like the proximity to finance is a natural fit. So are credit associates materially worse off than say M&A/Funds associates re luxe buyside exists?

Firm is elite at both practices and is a v10. Commitment papers are truly hell. It's not uncommon to bill 30 hours in a weekend and pull an all nighter Friday and an almost all nighter on Saturday and/or Sunday. This can happen 15-20 times a year (even before the recent crazy boom). Then, if the papers hit, they have all the shitty aspects of an M&A deal (tons of international work, ridiculous timeliness, insane client expectations, etc.) Just on a super compressed timeline. If the bulge bracket papers hit, you bill well north of 200 a month till the deal closes (admittedly a shorter timeline than our M&A deals, but really just as intense). I don't know anyone whom I work with who looks at the credit folks and says "jeez that looks like a nice easy predictable practice." All of us think they have it worse and counsel first years/summers to avoid it like the plague. Ever since I've been an associate (I'm a senior), they have to hire foreign law students as 3ls because they can't fill their classes with the normal summer associates, and they churn associates way more than us.

On the bright side, it's relatively easy to make partner, because literally no one wants to do it. Exits are fine if you make it to 6-8 year, but definitely way worse than 6-8 year v10 M&A and I think a worse lifestyle.

This is all for elite practices. My understanding is that if you aren't one of the 5-7 firms that does bulge bracket acquisition finance commitment paper work it is probably better than M&A.

If someone at one of the firms who does these hellish commitment papers wants to disagree with me, I'm open to being convinced it's just my shifty firm where this is true.

[Anonymous User]

For distressed, I understand restructuring is the best. Unfortunately my firm doesn’t do a lot of that. How far behind is credit, if it’s one of the most prestigious groups in the city? And do they have any interest in M&A folks, depending of course on what deals they’ve been on?

Actually got pinged for a merger arb seat a week ago for a reputable fund that was looking for M&A lawyers, but first time that has ever happened.

Normal way credit attorneys will have a difficult time, cause limited tactical uses of legal docs.

Interesting, but not surprised M&A comes out on top again re exits. Ppl make such a big deal about how stable/nice credit is in practice but am I correct in assuming it’s utility is confined to those who are sure big law in their end game?

Likewise, capital markets and especially funds don’t even get a seat at this discussion re buy side, correct?

As a % of that type of attorney on the "buyside" , funds actually might clear M&A due to self selection.

Quite a few ex-funds attorneys in senior
LP allocator seats making mid six figures to just cracking seven figures for 40-50 hours a week.

Also was that wave of hiring where funds attorneys were getting vacummed up by GP stakes funds as IPs.

whoever said credit is nice/stable probably isn't at an elite firm. Our credit group burns through more associates than M&A by a mile. Commitment papers practice at elite credit firms is BRUTAL on the lender side.

I said it and am at an elite firm. Renowned for PE M&A but also have a tier 0 credit/finance group. Might have overstepped with "nice," but stand by the proposition that credit is more stable in terms of overall deal work relative to M&A. Sure commitment papers/etc. are a drag, but volatility on the whole is way better in credit. Maybe this isn't true if your firm doesn't have a top M&A practice?

Regardless, am curious just how garbage credit exits re this thread. Some make it seem like credit work is way too legalese to be of use on the buyside while other make it seem like the proximity to finance is a natural fit. So are credit associates materially worse off than say M&A/Funds associates re luxe buyside exists?

Firm is elite at both practices and is a v10. Commitment papers are truly hell. It's not uncommon to bill 30 hours in a weekend and pull an all nighter Friday and an almost all nighter on Saturday and/or Sunday. This can happen 15-20 times a year (even before the recent crazy boom). Then, if the papers hit, they have all the shitty aspects of an M&A deal (tons of international work, ridiculous timeliness, insane client expectations, etc.) Just on a super compressed timeline. If the bulge bracket papers hit, you bill well north of 200 a month till the deal closes (admittedly a shorter timeline than our M&A deals, but really just as intense). I don't know anyone whom I work with who looks at the credit folks and says "jeez that looks like a nice easy predictable practice." All of us think they have it worse and counsel first years/summers to avoid it like the plague. Ever since I've been an associate (I'm a senior), they have to hire foreign law students as 3ls because they can't fill their classes with the normal summer associates, and they churn associates way more than us.

On the bright side, it's relatively easy to make partner, because literally no one wants to do it. Exits are fine if you make it to 6-8 year, but definitely way worse than 6-8 year v10 M&A and I think a worse lifestyle.

This is all for elite practices. My understanding is that if you aren't one of the 5-7 firms that does bulge bracket acquisition finance commitment paper work it is probably better than M&A.

If someone at one of the firms who does these hellish commitment papers wants to disagree with me, I'm open to being convinced it's just my shifty firm where this is true.

Very interesting, I was told the opposite re Credit as a summer/junior rotating. Would you mind listing the 5-7 that do BB acquisition finance commitment paper work?

[Anonymous User]

Very interesting, I was told the opposite re Credit as a summer/junior rotating. Would you mind listing the 5-7 that do BB acquisition finance commitment paper work?

Also curious about this. Should I just assume that it’s all the v10 Credit groups?

[Anonymous User]

As someone who did this (albeit debt side), very hard to do with any kind of seniority and even then you need grace from a senior person to take a chance on you. If you don’t feel like you could competently underwrite an opportunity and then invest your own money on a non-diversified basis in the particular sector you are targeting, then it is premature to think about this type of move with seniority.

Easiest path: come over as counsel to a small, entrepreneurial group, spend time expanding the scope of your responsibilities until business side is included.

Easy path: do it while you're junior and come over as a junior (either debt or equity side).

Hard path: with seniority on debt side. You have to really prove yourself as a value add as a lawyer as someone who fundamentally gets the business points through and through (not just what you see in the legal dox).

Hardest path: with seniority on equity side. You need to have the full trust of your client along with a deep personal relationship with the key decision maker.

From the employer perspective, many qualified candidates with less risk relative to a legal background.

The really hard part: as a lawyer you’re trained to issue spot. A lot of legal work is telling your client some variation of: “if you believe X, then do A, and if you believe Y, then do B.” There is definitely value in that advice, but jumping business side fundamentally is about deciding whether A or B is the correct position. Sounds easy in theory, but many attorneys struggle with that transition.

As for me, I did it because a firm client liked my work and ability to pick up on and synthesize the business issues. I came across with very good seniority and was promoted into better seniority.

Additionally, prestige doesn’t really carry much weight outside of legal circles. Vast, vast majority of senior business folks couldn’t tell you the difference between Cravath and Dentons. All they really know are the lawyers they work with.

Finally, figure out why you want to make the switch. There are a lot great things about leaving private big firm practice behind but honestly there are things that are worse, and there are many things about business side that are just variations on the things you may not like about private practice.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone w/ knowledge about this talk about going to a distressed debt fund as an Rx lawyer in an investment role? How much experience do you need? Can you compare to practicing at a law firm?

[Anonymous User]

As someone who did this (albeit debt side), very hard to do with any kind of seniority and even then you need grace from a senior person to take a chance on you. If you don’t feel like you could competently underwrite an opportunity and then invest your own money on a non-diversified basis in the particular sector you are targeting, then it is premature to think about this type of move with seniority.

Easiest path: come over as counsel to a small, entrepreneurial group, spend time expanding the scope of your responsibilities until business side is included.

Easy path: do it while you're junior and come over as a junior (either debt or equity side).

Hard path: with seniority on debt side. You have to really prove yourself as a value add as a lawyer as someone who fundamentally gets the business points through and through (not just what you see in the legal dox).

Hardest path: with seniority on equity side. You need to have the full trust of your client along with a deep personal relationship with the key decision maker.

From the employer perspective, many qualified candidates with less risk relative to a legal background.

The really hard part: as a lawyer you’re trained to issue spot. A lot of legal work is telling your client some variation of: “if you believe X, then do A, and if you believe Y, then do B.” There is definitely value in that advice, but jumping business side fundamentally is about deciding whether A or B is the correct position. Sounds easy in theory, but many attorneys struggle with that transition.

As for me, I did it because a firm client liked my work and ability to pick up on and synthesize the business issues. I came across with very good seniority and was promoted into better seniority.

Additionally, prestige doesn’t really carry much weight outside of legal circles. Vast, vast majority of senior business folks couldn’t tell you the difference between Cravath and Dentons. All they really know are the lawyers they work with.

Finally, figure out why you want to make the switch. There are a lot great things about leaving private big firm practice behind but honestly there are things that are worse, and there are many things about business side that are just variations on the things you may not like about private practice.

Were you coming from a credit/finance group? And what type of comp hit do you take if you come over as a junior?

[Anonymous User]

As someone who did this (albeit debt side), very hard to do with any kind of seniority and even then you need grace from a senior person to take a chance on you. If you don’t feel like you could competently underwrite an opportunity and then invest your own money on a non-diversified basis in the particular sector you are targeting, then it is premature to think about this type of move with seniority.

Easiest path: come over as counsel to a small, entrepreneurial group, spend time expanding the scope of your responsibilities until business side is included.

Easy path: do it while you're junior and come over as a junior (either debt or equity side).

Hard path: with seniority on debt side. You have to really prove yourself as a value add as a lawyer as someone who fundamentally gets the business points through and through (not just what you see in the legal dox).

Hardest path: with seniority on equity side. You need to have the full trust of your client along with a deep personal relationship with the key decision maker.

From the employer perspective, many qualified candidates with less risk relative to a legal background.

The really hard part: as a lawyer you’re trained to issue spot. A lot of legal work is telling your client some variation of: “if you believe X, then do A, and if you believe Y, then do B.” There is definitely value in that advice, but jumping business side fundamentally is about deciding whether A or B is the correct position. Sounds easy in theory, but many attorneys struggle with that transition.

As for me, I did it because a firm client liked my work and ability to pick up on and synthesize the business issues. I came across with very good seniority and was promoted into better seniority.

Additionally, prestige doesn’t really carry much weight outside of legal circles. Vast, vast majority of senior business folks couldn’t tell you the difference between Cravath and Dentons. All they really know are the lawyers they work with.

Finally, figure out why you want to make the switch. There are a lot great things about leaving private big firm practice behind but honestly there are things that are worse, and there are many things about business side that are just variations on the things you may not like about private practice.

100% agree with this. I am a guy who did the junior transition over (I was a firm lawyer for six months / lawyer for 2 years when I moved). My investment fund has ~ 7 lawyers (out of 450 or so investment professionals) in investing seats and most moved over as juniors. Zero moved straight over into senior PE seats out of 120+ , 2 did MBAs to reset, 1 moved to a credit HF relatively senior, 2 moved relatively senior into funds / real assets seats after being at fund for 5+ years and 1 moved over junior into real assets.

As a junior i still get challenged on business quality rather than legal risks which is likely exasperated at the senior levels. Im in a quasi debt / equity seat

On firm quality, slighly disagree. Everyone knows who they have used / gone against and views on their quality. Like we dont use Paul Weiss but my seniors hold them in super high regard since we run into them a ton aggressively repping Apollo. So if a junior tried to come over from there, much more name recognition than a Dentons associate for example. However specialist firms occasionally outperform here. Like Schulte, Seward, and Olshan, all likely have insane name recognition compared to firms of their vault ranking cause a ton of people have run across them on the HF side.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who did this (albeit debt side), very hard to do with any kind of seniority and even then you need grace from a senior person to take a chance on you. If you don’t feel like you could competently underwrite an opportunity and then invest your own money on a non-diversified basis in the particular sector you are targeting, then it is premature to think about this type of move with seniority.

Easiest path: come over as counsel to a small, entrepreneurial group, spend time expanding the scope of your responsibilities until business side is included.

Easy path: do it while you're junior and come over as a junior (either debt or equity side).

Hard path: with seniority on debt side. You have to really prove yourself as a value add as a lawyer as someone who fundamentally gets the business points through and through (not just what you see in the legal dox).

Hardest path: with seniority on equity side. You need to have the full trust of your client along with a deep personal relationship with the key decision maker.

From the employer perspective, many qualified candidates with less risk relative to a legal background.

The really hard part: as a lawyer you’re trained to issue spot. A lot of legal work is telling your client some variation of: “if you believe X, then do A, and if you believe Y, then do B.” There is definitely value in that advice, but jumping business side fundamentally is about deciding whether A or B is the correct position. Sounds easy in theory, but many attorneys struggle with that transition.

As for me, I did it because a firm client liked my work and ability to pick up on and synthesize the business issues. I came across with very good seniority and was promoted into better seniority.

Additionally, prestige doesn’t really carry much weight outside of legal circles. Vast, vast majority of senior business folks couldn’t tell you the difference between Cravath and Dentons. All they really know are the lawyers they work with.

Finally, figure out why you want to make the switch. There are a lot great things about leaving private big firm practice behind but honestly there are things that are worse, and there are many things about business side that are just variations on the things you may not like about private practice.

Were you coming from a credit/finance group? And what type of comp hit do you take if you come over as a junior?

Yes to first question. I came over with seniority. 15% hit first year. Once bonuses started to be earned, I’ve been significantly ahead of law firm pay schedule since. At some point a top rainmaker partner in big law would overtake me after years of service, but I’m not plugged into law firm comp to know how many years that would take.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who did this (albeit debt side), very hard to do with any kind of seniority and even then you need grace from a senior person to take a chance on you. If you don’t feel like you could competently underwrite an opportunity and then invest your own money on a non-diversified basis in the particular sector you are targeting, then it is premature to think about this type of move with seniority.

Easiest path: come over as counsel to a small, entrepreneurial group, spend time expanding the scope of your responsibilities until business side is included.

Easy path: do it while you're junior and come over as a junior (either debt or equity side).

Hard path: with seniority on debt side. You have to really prove yourself as a value add as a lawyer as someone who fundamentally gets the business points through and through (not just what you see in the legal dox).

Hardest path: with seniority on equity side. You need to have the full trust of your client along with a deep personal relationship with the key decision maker.

From the employer perspective, many qualified candidates with less risk relative to a legal background.

The really hard part: as a lawyer you’re trained to issue spot. A lot of legal work is telling your client some variation of: “if you believe X, then do A, and if you believe Y, then do B.” There is definitely value in that advice, but jumping business side fundamentally is about deciding whether A or B is the correct position. Sounds easy in theory, but many attorneys struggle with that transition.

As for me, I did it because a firm client liked my work and ability to pick up on and synthesize the business issues. I came across with very good seniority and was promoted into better seniority.

Additionally, prestige doesn’t really carry much weight outside of legal circles. Vast, vast majority of senior business folks couldn’t tell you the difference between Cravath and Dentons. All they really know are the lawyers they work with.

Finally, figure out why you want to make the switch. There are a lot great things about leaving private big firm practice behind but honestly there are things that are worse, and there are many things about business side that are just variations on the things you may not like about private practice.

100% agree with this. I am a guy who did the junior transition over (I was a firm lawyer for six months / lawyer for 2 years when I moved). My investment fund has ~ 7 lawyers (out of 450 or so investment professionals) in investing seats and most moved over as juniors. Zero moved straight over into senior PE seats out of 120+ , 2 did MBAs to reset, 1 moved to a credit HF relatively senior, 2 moved relatively senior into funds / real assets seats after being at fund for 5+ years and 1 moved over junior into real assets.

As a junior i still get challenged on business quality rather than legal risks which is likely exasperated at the senior levels. Im in a quasi debt / equity seat

On firm quality, slighly disagree. Everyone knows who they have used / gone against and views on their quality. Like we dont use Paul Weiss but my seniors hold them in super high regard since we run into them a ton aggressively repping Apollo. So if a junior tried to come over from there, much more name recognition than a Dentons associate for example. However specialist firms occasionally outperform here. Like Schulte, Seward, and Olshan, all likely have insane name recognition compared to firms of their vault ranking cause a ton of people have run across them on the HF side.

Fair enough on the law firm prestige. PW was actually what made me realize bus folks don’t care of about law firm brands. I go back decades to undergrad with a now business unit leader at a major institution. He was having trouble with opposing counsel on a deal and he called me up to ask if I had ever heard of some “a-holes called Paul Weiss”. He’s probably been across from them 50 times in his career and he’s only remembered names of actual lawyers. Even for bus folks that do remember law firms, firm prestige doesn’t register for them. That’s a lawyer thing.

I think we’re saying the same thing. Sorry to derail.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who did this (albeit debt side), very hard to do with any kind of seniority and even then you need grace from a senior person to take a chance on you. If you don’t feel like you could competently underwrite an opportunity and then invest your own money on a non-diversified basis in the particular sector you are targeting, then it is premature to think about this type of move with seniority.

Easiest path: come over as counsel to a small, entrepreneurial group, spend time expanding the scope of your responsibilities until business side is included.

Easy path: do it while you're junior and come over as a junior (either debt or equity side).

Hard path: with seniority on debt side. You have to really prove yourself as a value add as a lawyer as someone who fundamentally gets the business points through and through (not just what you see in the legal dox).

Hardest path: with seniority on equity side. You need to have the full trust of your client along with a deep personal relationship with the key decision maker.

From the employer perspective, many qualified candidates with less risk relative to a legal background.

The really hard part: as a lawyer you’re trained to issue spot. A lot of legal work is telling your client some variation of: “if you believe X, then do A, and if you believe Y, then do B.” There is definitely value in that advice, but jumping business side fundamentally is about deciding whether A or B is the correct position. Sounds easy in theory, but many attorneys struggle with that transition.

As for me, I did it because a firm client liked my work and ability to pick up on and synthesize the business issues. I came across with very good seniority and was promoted into better seniority.

Additionally, prestige doesn’t really carry much weight outside of legal circles. Vast, vast majority of senior business folks couldn’t tell you the difference between Cravath and Dentons. All they really know are the lawyers they work with.

Finally, figure out why you want to make the switch. There are a lot great things about leaving private big firm practice behind but honestly there are things that are worse, and there are many things about business side that are just variations on the things you may not like about private practice.

Were you coming from a credit/finance group? And what type of comp hit do you take if you come over as a junior?

Yes to first question. I came over with seniority. 15% hit first year. Once bonuses started to be earned, I’ve been significantly ahead of law firm pay schedule since. At some point a top rainmaker partner in big law would overtake me after years of service, but I’m not plugged into law firm comp to know how many years that would take.

Oh wow, that’s incredible. Sounds like you kind of had the dream scenario of getting poached by client. But curious how much your networking and knowledge of investing technicals mattered to the move?

[Anonymous User]

Would someone be able to paint a broad picture of the buyside re potential exits from a top firm? I'm a 3L and heading to a firm that does a lot of PE work (think Blackstone/KKR/SilverLake types) but don't think I fully understand what's out there. I know that you want to avoid desk lawyer jobs like the plague (unless you wan't to chill), but in the context of this thread and for obtaining an actual investor seat, are we talking the likes of these mega PE funds or at smaller shops? For example, a couple types of credit exits were mentioned but idk if that's in the context of a division of Blackstone or a speciality shop. I think part of my confusion is that it's much less structured than biglaw. Likewise, do the clients you rep while at a firm dictate where you can land to a certain degree?

[Anonymous User]

Would someone be able to paint a broad picture of the buyside re potential exits from a top firm? I'm a 3L and heading to a firm that does a lot of PE work (think Blackstone/KKR/SilverLake types) but don't think I fully understand what's out there. I know that you want to avoid desk lawyer jobs like the plague (unless you wan't to chill), but in the context of this thread and for obtaining an actual investor seat, are we talking the likes of these mega PE funds or at smaller shops? For example, a couple types of credit exits were mentioned but idk if that's in the context of a division of Blackstone or a speciality shop. I think part of my confusion is that it's much less structured than biglaw. Likewise, do the clients you rep while at a firm dictate where you can land to a certain degree?

PP from above who transitioned. Unfortunately, there is no broad picture to paint. It is extremely uncommon and of the less than a handful of people I personally know who have made the transition the stories are unique. There is a camaraderie among people who make the transition. When I switched, a very senior Goldman exec with a similar background was very kind to me after we randomly met.

Best advice I can give you if you’re serious is to skip private practice altogether and try to get on a traditional path to buy side. Next would be try to lateral as soon as possible to a non-NYC scale market or tertiary market to try to serve smaller funds who could use a utility player/jack of all trades. The large funds have an abundance of super qualified applicants and once you start practicing you’ll need need a minor miracle for the people who screen resumes to see through to your potential value.

[Anonymous User]

Would someone be able to paint a broad picture of the buyside re potential exits from a top firm? I'm a 3L and heading to a firm that does a lot of PE work (think Blackstone/KKR/SilverLake types) but don't think I fully understand what's out there. I know that you want to avoid desk lawyer jobs like the plague (unless you wan't to chill), but in the context of this thread and for obtaining an actual investor seat, are we talking the likes of these mega PE funds or at smaller shops? For example, a couple types of credit exits were mentioned but idk if that's in the context of a division of Blackstone or a speciality shop. I think part of my confusion is that it's much less structured than biglaw. Likewise, do the clients you rep while at a firm dictate where you can land to a certain degree?

PP from above who transitioned. Unfortunately, there is no broad picture to paint. It is extremely uncommon and of the less than a handful of people I personally know who have made the transition the stories are unique. There is a camaraderie among people who make the transition. When I switched, a very senior Goldman exec with a similar background was very kind to me after we randomly met.

Best advice I can give you if you’re serious is to skip private practice altogether and try to get on a traditional path to buy side. Next would be try to lateral as soon as possible to a non-NYC scale market or tertiary market to try to serve smaller funds who could use a utility player/jack of all trades. The large funds have an abundance of super qualified applicants and once you start practicing you’ll need need a minor miracle for the people who screen resumes to see through to your potential value.

Thanks for the advice. If my law school is outside the t6 and pre law background far from target, would it be best to lateral as a junior simply to get some v10 prestige on the resume?

Also like the idea of targeting a smaller fund/tertiary market, but does that put one on a lower general career trajectory than biglaw or is it a play to eventually break into the large funds? Idk how buyside comp varies in secondary/tertiary markets, but how hard would it be hard to stomach coming from biglaw…

[Anonymous User]

Would someone be able to paint a broad picture of the buyside re potential exits from a top firm? I'm a 3L and heading to a firm that does a lot of PE work (think Blackstone/KKR/SilverLake types) but don't think I fully understand what's out there. I know that you want to avoid desk lawyer jobs like the plague (unless you wan't to chill), but in the context of this thread and for obtaining an actual investor seat, are we talking the likes of these mega PE funds or at smaller shops? For example, a couple types of credit exits were mentioned but idk if that's in the context of a division of Blackstone or a speciality shop. I think part of my confusion is that it's much less structured than biglaw. Likewise, do the clients you rep while at a firm dictate where you can land to a certain degree?

PP from above who transitioned. Unfortunately, there is no broad picture to paint. It is extremely uncommon and of the less than a handful of people I personally know who have made the transition the stories are unique. There is a camaraderie among people who make the transition. When I switched, a very senior Goldman exec with a similar background was very kind to me after we randomly met.

Best advice I can give you if you’re serious is to skip private practice altogether and try to get on a traditional path to buy side. Next would be try to lateral as soon as possible to a non-NYC scale market or tertiary market to try to serve smaller funds who could use a utility player/jack of all trades. The large funds have an abundance of super qualified applicants and once you start practicing you’ll need need a minor miracle for the people who screen resumes to see through to your potential value.

Thanks for the advice. If my law school is outside the t6 and pre law background far from target, would it be best to lateral as a junior simply to get some v10 prestige on the resume?

Also like the idea of targeting a smaller fund/tertiary market, but does that put one on a lower general career trajectory than biglaw or is it a play to eventually break into the large funds? Idk how buyside comp varies in secondary/tertiary markets, but how hard would it be hard to stomach coming from biglaw…

You will most likely take a paycut at smaller funds/tertiary markets and while better chance than trying to pivot from biglaw, still very low chance of breaking into the big funds. Again, you are competing with people from like HSW with prior IB experience and not even all of them get positions. Due to supply & demand, it’s very competitive and no real reason for these firms to consider you.

As someone previously posted, you are probably locked out of buy side investing role permanently. Kind of sucks that your undergrad experience has so much implications on your careerpath but it is what it is unfortunately.

[Anonymous User]

When people mention coming from debt or equity side to break into business side PE roles, do they mean borrower vs. lender side credit practices? And in that regard, would leveraged finance (from the sponsor/borrower side) be good groups to target an exit to a distressed debt fund after achieving mid to senior level?