Picking practice area - RX or M&A Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all, I need some advice on picking a group. First year associate here and have done restructuring/bankruptcy type work and general M&A. I will need to make a decision to focus on one area soon but can't seem to make a decision.

In general I feel like RX work could be more interesting and varied (not every deal follows the same process, more analysis etc), but I can't help feeling like the opportunity costs for not picking M&A will be high. I didn't mind my time doing M&A as well.

Does anyone have experience in the two areas and can chime in on what the pros and cons are?

Specifically I have a couple of questions:

• I see a lot of discussion on this forum on exiting to a distressed desk of a hedge fund but the consensus seems to be that this is extremely rare. What other options are there for RX lawyers who don't stick it out in a firm for the long term? Will I be giving up a lot of optionality by picking RX?

• On a related note what is it like to be a desk lawyer on a distressed desk? Have friends who work in hedge funds on the investment side and it seems to be even more stressful than being at a law firm with high turnover and funds blowing up all the time

• What exactly makes a good M&A lawyer? With RX it's more obvious to me what the client is looking for in a lawyer not so much for M&A. Is it just the soft qualities like responsiveness and attention to detail? If that is the case how exactly do you make yourself stand out amongst the hordes of corporate associates when the time comes to exit?

As you can tell I'm not sure if I want to be grinding it out at a firm forever so having options open is fairly important to me. Have been debating this with myself for a while and still can't seem to come to a conclusion so any input is appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

Bump

[trebekismyhero]

I was an M&A associate and have a lot of friends that ended up doing RX. If your goal is to exit to in-house, M&A will give you way more options. Rx options are much more limited, maybe get lucky with a distressed fund, but generally harder to find. Whereas I have gotten plenty of in-house opportunities.

With that said, my friends' lives doing Rx at the firm seemed better than mine and the work generally sounded more interesting. To be a good M&A associate is probably similar to what makes a good associate, you basically have to be (1) responsive, (2) good attention to detail, (3) good with clients (I had a lot more interaction with clients early on compared to lit and other colleagues), (4) quick learner and avoid repeating mistakes. For exits, it is just about standing out in the interview and being able to tie in your experiences to the role you're interviewing for

[Anonymous User]

I am biased (b/c I am in Rx) but in my experience Rx seems much more interesting and analytical than M&A law. In Rx the law is a major driver of value and defines the parameters of what kind of deal you can get done, so the legal analysis and strategy involved is extremely important and is not relegated to an ancillary role (especially for in-court matters). In many of our negotiations the lawyers are driving the bus and are not treated as less important than the bankers, and obviously we play the leading role whenever things get litigated in bankruptcy. I am not sure the same could be said about M&A, where you're kind of just drafting docs and executing the deal cooked up by the business people.

It is true however that M&A has better exits, especially if you want to go in house. That's a harder sell than Rx. But I think if you stay at a firm, you're likelier to enjoy Rx more than M&A. And people do sometimes (albeit rarely) exit from Rx into cool roles (in house at banks/funds, or go business-side into Rx banking or distressed investing).