Elite corporate exit opportunities Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interested in hearing more about which roles and organizations ambitious and high-performing mid-levels and senior associates from the top corporate department in NYC are going to these days?

My understanding is that in years path the investment banking industry might have attracted some of these people.

Curious if that still holds or if there are new paths in favor among those who want to work hard, do well financially, and for whatever reason are not interested in becoming partner at a law firm.

[ExpOriental]

Escorting

[Anonymous User]

RX → the buy side

[fmrez]

Interested in hearing more about which roles and organizations ambitious and high-performing mid-levels and senior associates from the top corporate department in NYC are going to these days?

My understanding is that in years path the investment banking industry might have attracted some of these people.

Curious if that still holds or if there are new paths in favor among those who want to work hard, do well financially, and for whatever reason are not interested in becoming partner at a law firm.

The phrase is "in years past". Need to get this right if you are truly elite.

[LBJ's Hair]

exiting to IBD is a good lateral move if you're (a) interested in finance and (b) do not want to practice law. if you're an excellent mid/senior corp who actually likes legal practice to some degree and can deal with the lifestyle ... would not do this? much better off making a run at partner at your current firm or another:
- IBD is not a lifestyle improvement (at most places)
- IBD compensation, depending on the bank/year/your performance/% in equity/role, could actually be worse than your Biglaw comp
- IBD is a different skillset you won't know when you start, but that your peers will. and you're not coming in as a first-year analyst, so it's not like people are gonna go "oh it's cute he has no idea how to check a DCF"

the buy-side exits IMO have much less to do with how good you are at your job (and to some degree even firm brand with maybe one exception), and much more with your pre-law work experience, finance background/acumen, network, client base, etc

[Anonymous User]

exiting to IBD is a good lateral move if you're (a) interested in finance and (b) do not want to practice law. if you're an excellent mid/senior corp who actually likes legal practice to some degree and can deal with the lifestyle ... would not do this? much better off making a run at partner at your current firm or another:
- IBD is not a lifestyle improvement (at most places)
- IBD compensation, depending on the bank/year/your performance/% in equity/role, could actually be worse than your Biglaw comp
- IBD is a different skillset you won't know when you start, but that your peers will. and you're not coming in as a first-year analyst, so it's not like people are gonna go "oh it's cute he has no idea how to check a DCF"

the buy-side exits IMO have much less to do with how good you are at your job (and to some degree even firm brand with maybe one exception), and much more with your pre-law work experience, finance background/acumen, network, client base, etc

What’s the exception? (Wachtell?)

[LBJ's Hair]

exiting to IBD is a good lateral move if you're (a) interested in finance and (b) do not want to practice law. if you're an excellent mid/senior corp who actually likes legal practice to some degree and can deal with the lifestyle ... would not do this? much better off making a run at partner at your current firm or another:
- IBD is not a lifestyle improvement (at most places)
- IBD compensation, depending on the bank/year/your performance/% in equity/role, could actually be worse than your Biglaw comp
- IBD is a different skillset you won't know when you start, but that your peers will. and you're not coming in as a first-year analyst, so it's not like people are gonna go "oh it's cute he has no idea how to check a DCF"

the buy-side exits IMO have much less to do with how good you are at your job (and to some degree even firm brand with maybe one exception), and much more with your pre-law work experience, finance background/acumen, network, client base, etc

What’s the exception? (Wachtell?)

was what I was thinking of, but tough to disaggregate the effect of firm brand vs effect of those other factors

(to clarify also, point RE "you don't have to be good at your job" wasn't "funds can't tell the difference between a lawyer who works in distressed credit and a lawyer who works in M&A" obviously. it was more "no one is really going to know if, internally, you are perceived as a the 'star associate' vs the 'average associate'")

[Buglaw]

In my experience, quality of exits is not tied to how good or performing an associate you are. Networking, interview skills and luck tend to matter more. Sure, you need to be able to talk about what you’ve done, and a brand name helps for some jobs, but from a respectable law firm, most people will have enough experience to make their resume look good at the mid senior level. At that point, the other non-legal skills become more important.

Interested to see if other think differently.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, quality of exits is not tied to how good or performing an associate you are. Networking, interview skills and luck tend to matter more. Sure, you need to be able to talk about what you’ve done, and a brand name helps for some jobs, but from a respectable law firm, most people will have enough experience to make their resume look good at the mid senior level. At that point, the other non-legal skills become more important.

Interested to see if other think differently.

I agree with this. I'm a corporate in-house lawyer now but started out in BigLaw as a litigation associate.

Getting interviews in-house, IME, boiled down to luck.

[Anonymous User]

exiting to IBD is a good lateral move if you're (a) interested in finance and (b) do not want to practice law. if you're an excellent mid/senior corp who actually likes legal practice to some degree and can deal with the lifestyle ... would not do this? much better off making a run at partner at your current firm or another:
- IBD is not a lifestyle improvement (at most places)
- IBD compensation, depending on the bank/year/your performance/% in equity/role, could actually be worse than your Biglaw comp
- IBD is a different skillset you won't know when you start, but that your peers will. and you're not coming in as a first-year analyst, so it's not like people are gonna go "oh it's cute he has no idea how to check a DCF"

the buy-side exits IMO have much less to do with how good you are at your job (and to some degree even firm brand with maybe one exception), and much more with your pre-law work experience, finance background/acumen, network, client base, etc

What’s the exception? (Wachtell?)

was what I was thinking of, but tough to disaggregate the effect of firm brand vs effect of those other factors

(to clarify also, point RE "you don't have to be good at your job" wasn't "funds can't tell the difference between a lawyer who works in distressed credit and a lawyer who works in M&A" obviously. it was more "no one is really going to know if, internally, you are perceived as a the 'star associate' vs the 'average associate'")

But you do know who the associates are that are commercial, can give advice live without running everything by partner, and runs processes well.

Which ultimately is the skill set non-legal wants to hire. The same mid-senior associates that funds want to work with are likely the ones up for the truly “elite” exits. I know my firm asks for certain associates at times.

[Anonymous User]

IBD is going to get love here because it's prestigious and sexy, but...idk. Not because the industry is bad, or because of the work/life balance in a vacuum, but because of how that workplace skews younger.

Analysts are straight out of school (so like 21-22) and Associates are mostly post-MBA (which can mean 25-30+) but increasingly are made up of direct A-to-A promotes (so 23-24 when they start). Corporate biglaw lawyers aren't getting hired above that level and might have to spend years (I'm talking at least 3-5 optimistically, and that's after three years of law school) building up credibility before jumping buyside, and in many ways are the riskiest kind of non-banking people to hire. Actual post-MBAs usually come from CorpFin or strategy or some kind of loose "modeling" background that can make them "trustworthy" on the finance front, but lawyers may have to spend more time building up their credibility before making the crossover.

Why does the age / timing matter? Because some previous posters mentioned comp being a step down at the Associate level once you've spent enough time in the law to transfer over, which is a real risk. But more than that, Associates are not treated appreciably better than Analysts when it comes to hours in the office. For direct internal promotes or young post-MBAs, that kind of time commitment can be fine since most are single / pre-kid (or with a young kid) / not commuting long distances because they can delay moving to the suburbs, etc. But spending those kinds of hours, doing "grunt work" after a Senior Associate-ish workload in Biglaw, and facing more suspicion than some other finance types for the VP promote where the lifestyle actually might get better can all be pretty grueling mentally if one is a "rockstar" at their law firm, not to mention the impact on partners and families.

Some people might be able to make the switch earlier in their career due to their connections or pre-law school work experience, but those people also might have just recruited for IBD straight out of law school. If the goal is to be close to the finance side of the deals process, honestly going in-house as a GC for a startup or a mid-size company in a heavy M&A industry might be best. Even riding the partner track in biglaw before hopping over to a PE fund as a GC might make more sense lifestyle-wise. But trying to crack the code to break into IBD as early as possible has a lot of downside to it that isn't talked about enough. Yeah, Jim Donovan exists, but he also got an MBA concurrent with his undergrad (100% unheard of now), seems to have had connections, and started at Goldman right out of school instead of lateraling after a few years in biglaw. Lloyd went over to Goldman as a *trader* in the pre-quant era when that was a thing, and that was four years out. Rubenstein had a whole-ass *policy* career before co-founding a PE firm through connections at work. So I wouldn't use famous examples to mythologize too much about finance exits.

[Anonymous User]

IBD is going to get love here because it's prestigious and sexy, but...idk. Not because the industry is bad, or because of the work/life balance in a vacuum, but because of how that workplace skews younger.

Analysts are straight out of school (so like 21-22) and Associates are mostly post-MBA (which can mean 25-30+) but increasingly are made up of direct A-to-A promotes (so 23-24 when they start). Corporate biglaw lawyers aren't getting hired above that level and might have to spend years (I'm talking at least 3-5 optimistically, and that's after three years of law school) building up credibility before jumping buyside, and in many ways are the riskiest kind of non-banking people to hire. Actual post-MBAs usually come from CorpFin or strategy or some kind of loose "modeling" background that can make them "trustworthy" on the finance front, but lawyers may have to spend more time building up their credibility before making the crossover.

Why does the age / timing matter? Because some previous posters mentioned comp being a step down at the Associate level once you've spent enough time in the law to transfer over, which is a real risk. But more than that, Associates are not treated appreciably better than Analysts when it comes to hours in the office. For direct internal promotes or young post-MBAs, that kind of time commitment can be fine since most are single / pre-kid (or with a young kid) / not commuting long distances because they can delay moving to the suburbs, etc. But spending those kinds of hours, doing "grunt work" after a Senior Associate-ish workload in Biglaw, and facing more suspicion than some other finance types for the VP promote where the lifestyle actually might get better can all be pretty grueling mentally if one is a "rockstar" at their law firm, not to mention the impact on partners and families.

Some people might be able to make the switch earlier in their career due to their connections or pre-law school work experience, but those people also might have just recruited for IBD straight out of law school. If the goal is to be close to the finance side of the deals process, honestly going in-house as a GC for a startup or a mid-size company in a heavy M&A industry might be best. Even riding the partner track in biglaw before hopping over to a PE fund as a GC might make more sense lifestyle-wise. But trying to crack the code to break into IBD as early as possible has a lot of downside to it that isn't talked about enough. Yeah, Jim Donovan exists, but he also got an MBA concurrent with his undergrad (100% unheard of now), seems to have had connections, and started at Goldman right out of school instead of lateraling after a few years in biglaw. Lloyd went over to Goldman as a *trader* in the pre-quant era when that was a thing, and that was four years out. Rubenstein had a whole-ass *policy* career before co-founding a PE firm through connections at work. So I wouldn't use famous examples to mythologize too much about finance exits.

I work adjacent to IBD / Biglaw and used to do biglaw years ago. IBD isn't a no-brainer, but I think this post gives it a bad shake.

If you make into IBD as an associate before the age of 30, you probably are fine. Its a 3 year track to VP, where money starts flowing pretty fluidly. VP isn't super difficult to make these days, its more if you stay, you will make it . Much easier to make VP than the consulting VP equivalent.

On competition. A2As are definitely going to be better than you, and they are the competition that have done the job 2 years already and know how the sausage is made. Post-MBAs aren't that much competition. A K-JD person with 4 years of experience is equivalent age wise to an new MBA grad, with 5 years of pre-MBA W/E. While there are some former corporate finance people moving over, the mix also includes a bunch of people doing full career changes. The work itself also isn't that technical. You are getting targeted as a biglaw associate, because you have proven that you have a high horsepower, likely know how to take shit from psycho clients, and know how deal processes work. That is much more applicable than someone who spent their time pre-MBA forecasting salted peanut sales for planters in the Midwest region.

The other thing is, associate lifestyle after ASO1 is a ton better than ASO1 for post-MBA grads. Once you actually know what you are doing, job is ~65 hours a week vs. the 80+ hours a week at the analyst level. Not a lifestyle job by any means but no worse than my friends in good M&A / Finance / Cap Markets practices at big firms. There is a reason why the A2As have such better lives than most others.

On compensation, IBD is inflated this year as well, but 1st year (non-stub) associates at banks whose numbers have come out are comping out between 3rd and 4th years in biglaw so if you move over before then, you are doing OK. (~350-400 1st year associate comp).

Lastly banks do give some credit for biglaw experience, most of the people I know who have moved over at seniority greater than 3rd year biglaw associate have generally moved over at an ASO2 level. Timing becomes an issue if you worked before going to law school.

[Anonymous User]

IBD is going to get love here because it's prestigious and sexy, but...idk. Not because the industry is bad, or because of the work/life balance in a vacuum, but because of how that workplace skews younger.

Analysts are straight out of school (so like 21-22) and Associates are mostly post-MBA (which can mean 25-30+) but increasingly are made up of direct A-to-A promotes (so 23-24 when they start). Corporate biglaw lawyers aren't getting hired above that level and might have to spend years (I'm talking at least 3-5 optimistically, and that's after three years of law school) building up credibility before jumping buyside, and in many ways are the riskiest kind of non-banking people to hire. Actual post-MBAs usually come from CorpFin or strategy or some kind of loose "modeling" background that can make them "trustworthy" on the finance front, but lawyers may have to spend more time building up their credibility before making the crossover.

Why does the age / timing matter? Because some previous posters mentioned comp being a step down at the Associate level once you've spent enough time in the law to transfer over, which is a real risk. But more than that, Associates are not treated appreciably better than Analysts when it comes to hours in the office. For direct internal promotes or young post-MBAs, that kind of time commitment can be fine since most are single / pre-kid (or with a young kid) / not commuting long distances because they can delay moving to the suburbs, etc. But spending those kinds of hours, doing "grunt work" after a Senior Associate-ish workload in Biglaw, and facing more suspicion than some other finance types for the VP promote where the lifestyle actually might get better can all be pretty grueling mentally if one is a "rockstar" at their law firm, not to mention the impact on partners and families.

Some people might be able to make the switch earlier in their career due to their connections or pre-law school work experience, but those people also might have just recruited for IBD straight out of law school. If the goal is to be close to the finance side of the deals process, honestly going in-house as a GC for a startup or a mid-size company in a heavy M&A industry might be best. Even riding the partner track in biglaw before hopping over to a PE fund as a GC might make more sense lifestyle-wise. But trying to crack the code to break into IBD as early as possible has a lot of downside to it that isn't talked about enough. Yeah, Jim Donovan exists, but he also got an MBA concurrent with his undergrad (100% unheard of now), seems to have had connections, and started at Goldman right out of school instead of lateraling after a few years in biglaw. Lloyd went over to Goldman as a *trader* in the pre-quant era when that was a thing, and that was four years out. Rubenstein had a whole-ass *policy* career before co-founding a PE firm through connections at work. So I wouldn't use famous examples to mythologize too much about finance exits.

I work adjacent to IBD / Biglaw and used to do biglaw years ago. IBD isn't a no-brainer, but I think this post gives it a bad shake.

If you make into IBD as an associate before the age of 30, you probably are fine. Its a 3 year track to VP, where money starts flowing pretty fluidly. VP isn't super difficult to make these days, its more if you stay, you will make it . Much easier to make VP than the consulting VP equivalent.

On competition. A2As are definitely going to be better than you, and they are the competition that have done the job 2 years already and know how the sausage is made. Post-MBAs aren't that much competition. A K-JD person with 4 years of experience is equivalent age wise to an new MBA grad, with 5 years of pre-MBA W/E. While there are some former corporate finance people moving over, the mix also includes a bunch of people doing full career changes. The work itself also isn't that technical. You are getting targeted as a biglaw associate, because you have proven that you have a high horsepower, likely know how to take shit from psycho clients, and know how deal processes work. That is much more applicable than someone who spent their time pre-MBA forecasting salted peanut sales for planters in the Midwest region.

The other thing is, associate lifestyle after ASO1 is a ton better than ASO1 for post-MBA grads. Once you actually know what you are doing, job is ~65 hours a week vs. the 80+ hours a week at the analyst level. Not a lifestyle job by any means but no worse than my friends in good M&A / Finance / Cap Markets practices at big firms. There is a reason why the A2As have such better lives than most others.

On compensation, IBD is inflated this year as well, but 1st year (non-stub) associates at banks whose numbers have come out are comping out between 3rd and 4th years in biglaw so if you move over before then, you are doing OK. (~350-400 1st year associate comp).

Lastly banks do give some credit for biglaw experience, most of the people I know who have moved over at seniority greater than 3rd year biglaw associate have generally moved over at an ASO2 level. Timing becomes an issue if you worked before going to law school.

Quoted anon, just wanted to say this is a really thoughtful and detailed post I agree with almost entirely. There *is* a time period where it can work out, even if it’s a little narrower for those with pre-law school WE / whose connections take a little longer to form. I’d also caution that though your numbers on hours sound right for ASO’s, there can definitely be nightmare fuel deals with the wrong MD / group that can basically result in Analyst hours at times to tilt those numbers up. Still, people coming from biglaw probably know that. Really appreciate your thoughts!

[Anonymous User]

Work in house in an IBD as a lawyer after big law. I don’t really get why someone would go into banking as a mid-senior associate. I’m sure someone has their reasons, but best I can figure is it took someone 5-7 years to determine, (a) they don’t mind working all the time, (b) they don’t want to be a lawyer and (c) they are very committed to making a ton of money. Even then, I would still just stick it out in big law unless I reallllly hated being a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

Work in house in an IBD as a lawyer after big law. I don’t really get why someone would go into banking as a mid-senior associate. I’m sure someone has their reasons, but best I can figure is it took someone 5-7 years to determine, (a) they don’t mind working all the time, (b) they don’t want to be a lawyer and (c) they are very committed to making a ton of money. Even then, I would still just stick it out in big law unless I reallllly hated being a lawyer.

I think it’s dependent on what level you move over at. If you get a VP or ASO 3 seat, which isn’t unheard of, 2-3 years there really expands universe of exit ops and probably extends your high compensation ramp if you think you will get pushed out of biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

Work in house in an IBD as a lawyer after big law. I don’t really get why someone would go into banking as a mid-senior associate. I’m sure someone has their reasons, but best I can figure is it took someone 5-7 years to determine, (a) they don’t mind working all the time, (b) they don’t want to be a lawyer and (c) they are very committed to making a ton of money. Even then, I would still just stick it out in big law unless I reallllly hated being a lawyer.

I think it’s dependent on what level you move over at. If you get a VP or ASO 3 seat, which isn’t unheard of, 2-3 years there really expands universe of exit ops and probably extends your high compensation ramp if you think you will get pushed out of biglaw.

That’s fair. I guess if your getting fired, that would be a reason. I just couldn’t imagine killing myself for another 3 years for a non-legal option. Like why wait 5-7 years in big law then jump to an I-bank to just not be a lawyer. Just bail on law in years 1-2 then if you want to be a banker go pursue that.

I guess that brings me to another possible reason, poor decision making and self awareness.

[Anonymous User]

What would be the path to banker role after 1-2 years of big law?

[Anonymous User]

What would be the path to banker role after 1-2 years of big law?

Network ideally from a V20 starting now if you know your finance technicals. Otherwise learn your finance technicals and then network. IBD is just as strapped for people at the associate as biglaw is right now. They will have a mass exodus when bonuses clear largely in Q1 2022.

It is really easy to ping ex-lawyers in IBD seats and ask them how they made the switch. I had IBD offers within 6 months of starting biglaw in 2017 when things weren't as crazy, though ultimately went a different career direction. My CV was OK but not amazing (T20, non-V20 firm).

[Anonymous User]

What would be the path to banker role after 1-2 years of big law?

if you wanna do it, do it now, even 6 months in. learn the vault guide for technicals (do it over a few weekends), apply. there are openings, they need people. no reason to wait, this is a lateral move to a junior nonlegal role

[Anonymous User]

What’s the salary / progression look like? What are the pros and cons overall v staying in law? I don’t hate law, but I want to maximize my earnings and career generally.

[thisismytlsuername]

God I love the internet. "I'm considering making a life-altering decision. Anonymous stranger, can you please tell me everything I need to know so I can decide? Thank you for your kindness."

[jotarokujo]

What’s the salary / progression look like? What are the pros and cons overall v staying in law? I don’t hate law, but I want to maximize my earnings and career generally.

i dont understand going to law school if you are ambivalent between ibd and law. makes 0 sense

[The Lsat Airbender]

God I love the internet. "I'm considering making a life-altering decision. Anonymous stranger, can you please tell me everything I need to know so I can decide? Thank you for your kindness."

also peculiar to me how the askers of these incredibly generic, broad questions feel the need to ask anonymously

[Anonymous User]

God I love the internet. "I'm considering making a life-altering decision. Anonymous stranger, can you please tell me everything I need to know so I can decide? Thank you for your kindness."

I'm considering the possibility at some future point. There was a discussion about it as a possible exit option, and I have the technical skills. This is literally a forum for strangers on the internet to give advice to people. If you have any resources to direct me to I'd appreciate it.

i dont understand going to law school if you are ambivalent between ibd and law. makes 0 sense

I went to law school because I had the stats to go to a T14, and I didn't have the background for an elite MBA. I don't regret it, it paid off. Plenty of lawyers end up in non legal roles, this seems like a weird gripe to me.

also peculiar to me how the askers of these incredibly generic, broad questions feel the need to ask anonymously

Is "the lsat airbender" your legal name? Didn't think so. We're both anonymous, I'm just more of a coward (or more prudent, ymmv).

Thanks all for the helpful input! I've always depended on the kindness of strangers.

[Buglaw]

What’s the salary / progression look like? What are the pros and cons overall v staying in law? I don’t hate law, but I want to maximize my earnings and career generally.

I agree with the others that this is a bad question. What does maximizing a career mean? You shouldn't go into banking (or law) unless you want to be a banker or a lawyer. You kind of need to answer that question for yourself.