Illusive Buy Side Exits Forum

[Anonymous User]

Why are buyside exits so impossible from elite biglaw firms with high caliber wall st. reps? I'm not talking about primarily legal roles and especially not becoming a desk lawyer Blackstone etc.

If a lawyer from positions themself correctly and gains finance/biz technicals as they progress, do similar biz exits become easier? Espeically if the firm does work for many of the prestigious shops. Obviously someone like an experienced PE M&A lawyer will have primarily developed ("worthless") legal skills, but don't they also have a valuable sense for dealflow/risk/industry that would at least make them a candidate.

[Anonymous User]

Why are buyside exits so impossible from elite biglaw firms with high caliber wall st. reps? I'm not talking about primarily legal roles and especially not becoming a desk lawyer Blackstone etc.

If a lawyer from positions themself correctly and gains finance/biz technicals as they progress, do similar biz exits become easier? Espeically if the firm does work for many of the prestigious shops. Obviously someone like an experienced PE M&A lawyer will have primarily developed ("worthless") legal skills, but don't they also have a valuable sense for dealflow/risk/industry that would at least make them a candidate.

It’s not rocket science: it’s just supply and demand.

[Anonymous User]

Private equity is a ton of process management and execution at the mid-level. Lawyers touch probably about 20-25% of the process, and I'm being generous there.

There is a reason why more lawyers go to distressed seats which the process has closer ties to lawyers but distressed doesn't really pay more than biglaw with where returns have been last 12 years.

Not a ton of bankers at the VP / Director levels can make the move either since missing a ton of the skillset. Maybe at MD level, but your job is more sourcing and high level negotiations at that level.

[Anonymous User]

In a vacuum, a seasoned PE/M&A lawyer might have some of the requisite buy-side skills; but remember that lawyers are competing for those spots against investment bankers, who probably have MORE of those same skills. (And are better at selling themselves, whether or not they are actually more skillful.)

Also factor in the general perception of lawyers as smart but eggheaded, neurotic nay-sayers who have lots of attention to detail but no gut-feel for the bigger picture.

P.S. Perhaps the buy side is looking for people who can spell "elusive" correctly, too.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Why are MLB rosters so impossible from elite NBA teams with high caliber playoff records? I'm not talking about primarily media roles and especially not being a minor leaguer for the Birmingham Barons.

If a shooting guard positions themself correctly and gains batting/fielding practice as they progress, do similar baseball exits become easier? Especially if the team wins lots of championships. Obviously someone like a seasoned NBA veteran will have primarily developed ("worthless") basketball skills, but don't they also have a valuable sense for teamwork/mamba mentality/athleticism that would at least make them a candidate.

[Anonymous User]

Why are MLB rosters so impossible from elite NBA teams with high caliber playoff records? I'm not talking about primarily media roles and especially not being a minor leaguer for the Birmingham Barons.

If a shooting guard positions themself correctly and gains batting/fielding practice as they progress, do similar baseball exits become easier? Especially if the team wins lots of championships. Obviously someone like a seasoned NBA veteran will have primarily developed ("worthless") basketball skills, but don't they also have a valuable sense for teamwork/mamba mentality/athleticism that would at least make them a candidate.

lolz - though I don't if it's that insane of a comparison. Maybe more like a player trying to transition into a head coaching gig or go from center to point guard. And if someone is an absolute animal in the NBA, with the right physical skillset, you know NFL teams are going to be interested enough to bring you in. The problem is these guys wouldn't leave (e.g., Lebron) - so is that what happens in Biglaw? I.e., the guys who might be able to make the jump are star senior M&A lawyers who are lining up for arguably more lucrative equity partnership?

At any rate, what's the best way improve the odds? Re group, skillset, deal experience, etc.

[The Lsat Airbender]

"Best" way to improve your odds would be to go to an investment bank as an associate/VP and then prove you can handle the finance stuff while there. (You might need to do an MBA first.) The vaunted buy-side roles are tough to snag from a top bank, to underline how unicorny this is.

The problem is these guys wouldn't leave (e.g., Lebron) - so is that what happens in Biglaw? I.e., the guys who might be able to make the jump are star senior M&A lawyers who are lining up for arguably more lucrative equity partnership?

Pretty much. The "Deal Chads" who really, truly have talent for this stuff make partner, or else run off to be the GC of a startup or hedge fund or something. Notable category of exceptions would be people like Paul Singer whose legal experience didn't really have anything to do with their finance careers anyway.

The other thing about Lebron is that he's the greatest basketball player alive but would probably only be the 100th-to-1000th-best football player in the NFL. It's hard to give up that kind of prestige unless the pay would be way higher.

[Anonymous User]

"Best" way to improve your odds would be to go to an investment bank as an associate/VP and then prove you can handle the finance stuff while there. (You might need to do an MBA first.) The vaunted buy-side roles are tough to snag from a top bank, to underline how unicorny this is.

The problem is these guys wouldn't leave (e.g., Lebron) - so is that what happens in Biglaw? I.e., the guys who might be able to make the jump are star senior M&A lawyers who are lining up for arguably more lucrative equity partnership?

Pretty much. The "Deal Chads" who really, truly have talent for this stuff make partner, or else run off to be the GC of a startup or hedge fund or something. Notable category of exceptions would be people like Paul Singer whose legal experience didn't really have anything to do with their finance careers anyway.

The other thing about Lebron is that he's the greatest basketball player alive but would probably only be the 100th-to-1000th-best football player in the NFL. It's hard to give up that kind of prestige unless the pay would be way higher.

Can't agree that lebron is GOAT haha, but yeah. Didn't realize it was that unicorny from even the IB side. And probably not worth dropping years to go over as an associate.

Is coming in as VP that unicorny, especially if you're a star associate and have the technical skills? I've read conflicting opinions on here.

Also understand the prestige component, but pay is unquestionably higher than even v10 equity partner, correct (at least eventually)?

[Anonymous User]

"Best" way to improve your odds would be to go to an investment bank as an associate/VP and then prove you can handle the finance stuff while there. (You might need to do an MBA first.) The vaunted buy-side roles are tough to snag from a top bank, to underline how unicorny this is.

The problem is these guys wouldn't leave (e.g., Lebron) - so is that what happens in Biglaw? I.e., the guys who might be able to make the jump are star senior M&A lawyers who are lining up for arguably more lucrative equity partnership?

Pretty much. The "Deal Chads" who really, truly have talent for this stuff make partner, or else run off to be the GC of a startup or hedge fund or something. Notable category of exceptions would be people like Paul Singer whose legal experience didn't really have anything to do with their finance careers anyway.

The other thing about Lebron is that he's the greatest basketball player alive but would probably only be the 100th-to-1000th-best football player in the NFL. It's hard to give up that kind of prestige unless the pay would be way higher.

Can't agree that lebron is GOAT haha, but yeah. Didn't realize it was that unicorny from even the IB side. And probably not worth dropping years to go over as an associate.

Is coming in as VP that unicorny, especially if you're a star associate and have the technical skills? I've read conflicting opinions on here.

Also understand the prestige component, but pay is unquestionably higher than even v10 equity partner, correct (at least eventually)?

No pay is not unquestionably higher. Buyout PE, yes but distressed debt funds, no.

VP or principal in PE are two hardest seats to come in laterally as due to skillset from outside industry. By VP, tend to mean one step outside of post-MBA roles. So VP at a place where post MBAs land as senior associates.

[Anonymous User]

"Best" way to improve your odds would be to go to an investment bank as an associate/VP and then prove you can handle the finance stuff while there. (You might need to do an MBA first.) The vaunted buy-side roles are tough to snag from a top bank, to underline how unicorny this is.

The problem is these guys wouldn't leave (e.g., Lebron) - so is that what happens in Biglaw? I.e., the guys who might be able to make the jump are star senior M&A lawyers who are lining up for arguably more lucrative equity partnership?

Pretty much. The "Deal Chads" who really, truly have talent for this stuff make partner, or else run off to be the GC of a startup or hedge fund or something. Notable category of exceptions would be people like Paul Singer whose legal experience didn't really have anything to do with their finance careers anyway.

The other thing about Lebron is that he's the greatest basketball player alive but would probably only be the 100th-to-1000th-best football player in the NFL. It's hard to give up that kind of prestige unless the pay would be way higher.

Can't agree that lebron is GOAT haha, but yeah. Didn't realize it was that unicorny from even the IB side. And probably not worth dropping years to go over as an associate.

Is coming in as VP that unicorny, especially if you're a star associate and have the technical skills? I've read conflicting opinions on here.

Also understand the prestige component, but pay is unquestionably higher than even v10 equity partner, correct (at least eventually)?

No pay is not unquestionably higher. Buyout PE, yes but distressed debt funds, no.

VP or principal in PE are two hardest seats to come in laterally as due to skillset from outside industry. By VP, tend to mean one step outside of post-MBA roles. So VP at a place where post MBAs land as senior associates.

Why so much hype on the buy side then? Can it really be chalked up more “interesting” work? Or are the exits also materially better from there as well?

[The Lsat Airbender]

Why so much hype on the buy side then? Can it really be chalked up more “interesting” work? Or are the exits also materially better from there as well?

1) Because people use it as a synecdoche for the highest-paying stuff (PE carry, etc.)

2) Because it has marginally better QOL than ibanking without having to take the comp hit of going in-house

3) Because it's more prestigious, including lay prestige

4) Because some people are serotonin-deprived husks who can't stop moving on to the next brass ring

[Anonymous User]

"Best" way to improve your odds would be to go to an investment bank as an associate/VP and then prove you can handle the finance stuff while there. (You might need to do an MBA first.) The vaunted buy-side roles are tough to snag from a top bank, to underline how unicorny this is.

The problem is these guys wouldn't leave (e.g., Lebron) - so is that what happens in Biglaw? I.e., the guys who might be able to make the jump are star senior M&A lawyers who are lining up for arguably more lucrative equity partnership?

Pretty much. The "Deal Chads" who really, truly have talent for this stuff make partner, or else run off to be the GC of a startup or hedge fund or something. Notable category of exceptions would be people like Paul Singer whose legal experience didn't really have anything to do with their finance careers anyway.

The other thing about Lebron is that he's the greatest basketball player alive but would probably only be the 100th-to-1000th-best football player in the NFL. It's hard to give up that kind of prestige unless the pay would be way higher.

Can't agree that lebron is GOAT haha, but yeah. Didn't realize it was that unicorny from even the IB side. And probably not worth dropping years to go over as an associate.

Is coming in as VP that unicorny, especially if you're a star associate and have the technical skills? I've read conflicting opinions on here.

Also understand the prestige component, but pay is unquestionably higher than even v10 equity partner, correct (at least eventually)?

No pay is not unquestionably higher. Buyout PE, yes but distressed debt funds, no.

VP or principal in PE are two hardest seats to come in laterally as due to skillset from outside industry. By VP, tend to mean one step outside of post-MBA roles. So VP at a place where post MBAs land as senior associates.

Why so much hype on the buy side then? Can it really be chalked up more “interesting” work? Or are the exits also materially better from there as well?

Because when you do well, you make a whole lot more money.

[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)?

[The Lsat Airbender]

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)?

As discussed upthread, there's no particular want or need for legal experience among these employers. There's a fairly established pipeline (analyst/MBA>associate>maybe one or two more promos)—is that not obviously the most reliable way to go here? It's not, like, some jealously-guarded secret; you can go read about it on WSO.

If you're trying to optimize for a generally successful career and making more money than any individual ought to be able to, then focus on being a great lawyer and making a good impression on clients. That's a great idea for many reasons. If you want to optimize for finance, go do finance.

[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)?

As discussed upthread, there's no particular want or need for legal experience among these employers. There's a fairly established pipeline (analyst/MBA>associate>maybe one or two more promos)—is that not obviously the most reliable way to go here? It's not, like, some jealously-guarded secret; you can go read about it on WSO.

If you're trying to optimize for a generally successful career and making more money than any individual ought to be able to, then focus on being a great lawyer and making a good impression on clients. That's a great idea for many reasons. If you want to optimize for finance, go do finance.

I know the analyst>MBA>associate>etc. finance route is the most straightforward, but trying to gauge options considering I'm already in law. Not sure it makes sense to take a seniority hit, especially considering the possibility of failing to secure buyside or even make MD are real there too. Not necessarily saying I want to optimize for $$$ as the security of big law is nice, but I think anyone not considering comp as a major driver of the discussion is kidding themself.

In particular, I'm thinking of a couple of people at my firm (and comparable ones) who have gone from an associate with idk 3-5 years experience to one of associate/VP/MD (hard to tell what they actually went in as). Have even seen a MD lateral back from a non-bulge bracket to a v10 with equity. Any idea what's going in these situations?

[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)?

FYI - these exits are difficult even for M7 MBAs (better chance if you are at HSW), and more or less closed off if they didn’t have IB experience pre-MBA.

Again, it’s a matter of supply and demand.

[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.

[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?

[Anonymous User]

Why so much hype on the buy side then? Can it really be chalked up more “interesting” work? Or are the exits also materially better from there as well?

1) Because people use it as a synecdoche for the highest-paying stuff (PE carry, etc.)

2) Because it has marginally better QOL than ibanking without having to take the comp hit of going in-house

3) Because it's more prestigious, including lay prestige

4) Because some people are serotonin-deprived husks who can't stop moving on to the next brass ring

Honestly I find my job super fun / interesting and would hate doing banking or law (have done law and did a quasi-banking seat at my firm for a bit). I went to law school to move to an investment seat though.

Exit opps to corporate are much more interesting too.

[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.

[Anonymous User]

Why so much hype on the buy side then? Can it really be chalked up more “interesting” work? Or are the exits also materially better from there as well?

1) Because people use it as a synecdoche for the highest-paying stuff (PE carry, etc.)

2) Because it has marginally better QOL than ibanking without having to take the comp hit of going in-house

3) Because it's more prestigious, including lay prestige

4) Because some people are serotonin-deprived husks who can't stop moving on to the next brass ring

Honestly I find my job super fun / interesting and would hate doing banking or law (have done law and did a quasi-banking seat at my firm for a bit). I went to law school to move to an investment seat though.

Exit opps to corporate are much more interesting too.

Wait so you went to law school to go buy side? Assuming you didn’t go straight there, what group were you in? Very interested.

[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?

[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.

[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?

Is it DE Shaw? Everyone my class year in corporate at a NY V5 got pinged by them for the same job.

[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?