NYC vs. LA BL Culture Forum

[johndooley]

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

These people are dumb. Most WLRK partners would do unfathomable things to be a senior exec at blackstone or kkr, if only to avoid the most monotonous boring work imaginable for something more interesting (front office finance)

[johndooley]

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

It’s completely insane to even bring up being CEO of Goldman Sachs. My original point, which was a fair point, is that law is a bit less impressive in NYC because so many other people make equal or greater money.

Since there are only a handful of big bank CEOs, they have nothing to do with this conversation. Should OP go into show business because the CEOs of Disney and Warner Brothers make bank?

Also top biglaw partners at kirkland make 20 million now (I don't see a huge delta between 20 and 35m). 10m has become fairly common at top firms - I wouldn't be surprised if there are more biglaw partners making 5M + than people in high finance (numbers wise).

Lol. You do know most large financial institutions are publicly traded and audited? You do know kirkland and other V50 are not and are known to lie about their PPP? Kirkland can say it was $100 million and you would buy it hook line and sinker like a fool.

[johndooley]

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

It’s completely insane to even bring up being CEO of Goldman Sachs. My original point, which was a fair point, is that law is a bit less impressive in NYC because so many other people make equal or greater money.

Since there are only a handful of big bank CEOs, they have nothing to do with this conversation. Should OP go into show business because the CEOs of Disney and Warner Brothers make bank?

They don't have to bring up CEOs. MDs are on call less, make as much or more than a V50/100 partner, and do more interesting work. Lawyers are by no means NYC elite, even the managing partners. They don't get the nicest apartments, the nicest cars, the best schools for their children. If corporate America was a football team, the big firm lawyers would be the locker room janitor cleaning the mess.

[johndooley]

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

So funny to think the most impressive 22 year olds want to go into law and not high finance. Hysterical actually. And we have not even addressed FAANG.

[johndooley]

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

Yep. Former finance guy (IBD/megafund PE). The gap decreases over time, but on average, for most roles and people, is something like 50% more total comp for about 30% more total hours in my experience. By the time you get fucked on taxes, it's not as huge of a gap as you think in terms of lifestyle. You get to 400-700k much more quickly, but can easily get stalled there since comp higher than that is almost entirely driven by carry / deal flow. Much less job security and much less comp predictability. The only way to make much more, for fewer hours, is to start your own fund / work at a much smaller fund. That's a lot more risk overall though.

Guess you did not work at the right fund then...

You get to 400-700k without graduate school debt or running C&S for professors for free. You also get stock packages with capital gains, so less "fucked" on taxes than your service professional lawyer. You have more job security, how many entering associates stay on more than six years in big law? How is that in-house job salary?

[johndooley]

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

If big firm equity partners were smart they would IPO their firms and change the ethics rules to facilitate this. Australia allows it and you do not see rampant malpractice. Instead, they make less than bankers and often loser their wives to them.

[johndooley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s42gOg2WSU

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I love you Dooley, but you didn’t go to a top undergrad and you work in medmal in Orlando — which apparently is going great for you, and we’re all very happy for you. What’s confusing is how you gained all this inside knowledge about how amazing high finance is and how pathetic biglaw is, when you seem to have no first hand experience with either.

[johndooley]

I love you Dooley, but you didn’t go to a top undergrad and you work in medmal in Orlando — which apparently is going great for you, and we’re all very happy for you. What’s confusing is how you gained all this inside knowledge about how amazing high finance is and how pathetic biglaw is, when you seem to have no first hand experience with either.

As said in another thread, I worked in hospitality in FL (not Orlando) that gave me a lot of access and contact to people from these fields. Everyone from your suburban dentist pulling 500k a year to F500 CEOs. I picked up on their anxieties, their regrets, what they like about their job, how many houses they have, and I am intelligent enough to connect the dots. The firm lawyers were not only the least fun, they also tipped very poorly. So yes, I completely agree with the poster in another thread who said lawyers are not NYC "elites" (and accordingly shouldn't brag about living in NYC) whereas financiers can be.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I love you Dooley, but you didn’t go to a top undergrad and you work in medmal in Orlando — which apparently is going great for you, and we’re all very happy for you. What’s confusing is how you gained all this inside knowledge about how amazing high finance is and how pathetic biglaw is, when you seem to have no first hand experience with either.

As said in another thread, I worked in hospitality in FL (not Orlando) that gave me a lot of access and contact to people from these fields. Everyone from your suburban dentist pulling 500k a year to F500 CEOs. I picked up on their anxieties, their regrets, what they like about their job, how many houses they have, and I am intelligent enough to connect the dots. The firm lawyers were not only the least fun, they also tipped very poorly. So yes, I completely agree with the poster in another thread who said lawyers are not NYC "elites" (and accordingly shouldn't brag about living in NYC) whereas financiers can be.

So your views in this thread are based on your experience working for tips at hotels or restaurants in South Florida? That makes a ton of sense.

[Anonymous User]

100% agreed that megafirms should start IPOing. The partnership model is old and dumb. Also we should completely get rid of the billable hour and replace it with WLRK's model at least for the top end firms--its just that law is so up its own ass in traditionalism that old school firms won't go for it.

Edit: I wonder if this is K&E's long game--become even more of a heavyweight, IPO, and the equity partners laugh all the way to the bank.

Edit 2: Also, I think much of this whining about how bankers have it better is fundamentally misplaced. Bankers only have it better on the very top end--there are a lot of TTT ibanks where MDs aren't making all that much. Same with PE funds--before law school I worked at a fund that was trolling the lower middle market for any kind of potential synergies with our existing shitty portcos. A friend of mine just left his TTT bank for an equally TTT pe fund.

If you're only willing to consider the limited universe of "V10+ vs. MBB vs. BB ibanks vs. megafund PE", the PE folks likely win but are the smallest group. BB ibankers are probably the largest and run a much wider gamut than MBB or V10+ (the difference in value between those groups is up to the observer).

[Anonymous User]

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

It’s completely insane to even bring up being CEO of Goldman Sachs. My original point, which was a fair point, is that law is a bit less impressive in NYC because so many other people make equal or greater money.

Since there are only a handful of big bank CEOs, they have nothing to do with this conversation. Should OP go into show business because the CEOs of Disney and Warner Brothers make bank?

They don't have to bring up CEOs. MDs are on call less, make as much or more than a V50/100 partner, and do more interesting work. Lawyers are by no means NYC elite, even the managing partners. They don't get the nicest apartments, the nicest cars, the best schools for their children. If corporate America was a football team, the big firm lawyers would be the locker room janitor cleaning the mess.

Another fine example of a reasonable question asked on TLS derailed by a bunch of weird lawyers arguing over absurd concepts like what the "NYC elite" is (newsflash, a partner making $3-4m at a V-whatever for 15-20 years is comfortably in the "NYC elite" and can most certainly afford a nice apartment, whatever car they want, and whatever school they want for their kids).

[johndooley]

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

It’s completely insane to even bring up being CEO of Goldman Sachs. My original point, which was a fair point, is that law is a bit less impressive in NYC because so many other people make equal or greater money.

Since there are only a handful of big bank CEOs, they have nothing to do with this conversation. Should OP go into show business because the CEOs of Disney and Warner Brothers make bank?

They don't have to bring up CEOs. MDs are on call less, make as much or more than a V50/100 partner, and do more interesting work. Lawyers are by no means NYC elite, even the managing partners. They don't get the nicest apartments, the nicest cars, the best schools for their children. If corporate America was a football team, the big firm lawyers would be the locker room janitor cleaning the mess.

Another fine example of a reasonable question asked on TLS derailed by a bunch of weird lawyers arguing over absurd concepts like what the "NYC elite" is (newsflash, a partner making $3-4m at a V-whatever for 15-20 years is comfortably in the "NYC elite" and can most certainly afford a nice apartment, whatever car they want, and whatever school they want for their kids).

Someone at that income will almost certainly not sit on important NYC boards, join the most prestigious clubs and organizations, or send their children to the finest private schools. They may be able to afford the posted tuition, but it is understood a hefty donation is in order to secure a place after demographic balancing, faculty children, and recruited athletes are taken into account. Your definition of "elite" is having two domestic cars, a 3-br apartment with sub-50% down, and a 401(k). You need to aim higher.

[johndooley]

I love you Dooley, but you didn’t go to a top undergrad and you work in medmal in Orlando — which apparently is going great for you, and we’re all very happy for you. What’s confusing is how you gained all this inside knowledge about how amazing high finance is and how pathetic biglaw is, when you seem to have no first hand experience with either.

As said in another thread, I worked in hospitality in FL (not Orlando) that gave me a lot of access and contact to people from these fields. Everyone from your suburban dentist pulling 500k a year to F500 CEOs. I picked up on their anxieties, their regrets, what they like about their job, how many houses they have, and I am intelligent enough to connect the dots. The firm lawyers were not only the least fun, they also tipped very poorly. So yes, I completely agree with the poster in another thread who said lawyers are not NYC "elites" (and accordingly shouldn't brag about living in NYC) whereas financiers can be.

So your views in this thread are based on your experience working for tips at hotels or restaurants in South Florida? That makes a ton of sense.

I did not say hotels or restaurants. I was a sort of medium-term concierge, a quasi-travel agent/butler/adult babysitter/chef/driver/confidante. I had more contact with these people than some state school grad who got lucky on the lsat, went to a T14, and now "services" partners while sporting a nose ring.

[johndooley]

100% agreed that megafirms should start IPOing. The partnership model is old and dumb. Also we should completely get rid of the billable hour and replace it with WLRK's model at least for the top end firms--its just that law is so up its own ass in traditionalism that old school firms won't go for it.

Edit: I wonder if this is K&E's long game--become even more of a heavyweight, IPO, and the equity partners laugh all the way to the bank.

Edit 2: Also, I think much of this whining about how bankers have it better is fundamentally misplaced. Bankers only have it better on the very top end--there are a lot of TTT ibanks where MDs aren't making all that much. Same with PE funds--before law school I worked at a fund that was trolling the lower middle market for any kind of potential synergies with our existing shitty portcos. A friend of mine just left his TTT bank for an equally TTT pe fund.

If you're only willing to consider the limited universe of "V10+ vs. MBB vs. BB ibanks vs. megafund PE", the PE folks likely win but are the smallest group. BB ibankers are probably the largest and run a much wider gamut than MBB or V10+ (the difference in value between those groups is up to the observer).

They won't IPO because large firm lawyers are bad with numbers, whereas in medmal the whole practice depends on it. Clients would not accept WLRK's model, corporate law is way too saturated to demand that and lawyers are basically replaceable cogs, not a differentiated product.

A TTT IB MD can be less responsive than his equivalent in law and has way more interesting responsibilities. He can also become a CFO of some crappy portco or go into corporate development. A big law lawyer can go in-house, which is mind numbing and a waste of a life and education.

[johndooley]

Reupping this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s42gOg2WSU

Lawyers are not elite. They are paper pushers, and the bankers will see them coming every time

[Anonymous User]

This is a pretty epic thread derail, even by TLS standards.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is objectively unhinged

[johndooley]

This thread is objectively unhinged

Yea. ITT late 20s/early 30s associates with negative net worth tell the world that their bosses live models and bottles life on hospital boards and send their children to Horace Mann while the bankers grovel at their relative poverty. Unhinged is right.

[Anonymous User]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

Banking hours are hours you have to spend at the office or tied to your computer, not hours you actually worked. If bankers had to bill and record only active time they'd be about the same.

[johndooley]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

Banking hours are hours you have to spend at the office or tied to your computer, not hours you actually worked. If bankers had to bill and record only active time they'd be about the same.

The cool part about banking as a junior is that so long as you get the work done it does not matter whether you goof off the rest of the time. Only when you are more senior do you need your own book of business and to pitch your bank's services (which is easier to do than in big law because there are fewer players). If you are an attorney not on contingency, how good a job you do is pretty irrelevant so long as it is passable and you bill a lot. If you are on reading the daily news you cannot bill it or get credit for it in the eyes of your superiors. That banking MD just knows his junior is in the office, gets his work done, and doesn't care if he is on Reuters. Much more chill.

[JusticeChuckleNutz]

This thread is objectively unhinged

Straight up. OP asked about NYC v. LA. Why are people obsessed with comparing law to investment banking? So many threads devolve into this dumb shit.

Back on topic -- I am in a west coast office and have from time to time worked with partners/groups in NY. I remember thinking to myself at many points, "Man these NY people must not be getting all that much sleep."

[johndooley]

This thread is objectively unhinged

Straight up. OP asked about NYC v. LA. Why are people obsessed with comparing law to investment banking? So many threads devolve into this dumb shit.

Back on topic -- I am in a west coast office and have from time to time worked with partners/groups in NY. I remember thinking to myself at many points, "Man these NY people must not be getting all that much sleep."

"People" are not obsessed with it, lawyers are. Go on Wall Street Oasis, it is not even an argument there which is better because it is as clear as day. How many bankers wish they went to law school as they look back in middle age? How many lawyers regret their path? Lol............

Regarding NY v. LA, of course NY will on average have worse hours in any industry save maybe entertainment. It will be firm and office dependent. If you enjoy living in LA you probably will not like living in NYC and vice versa. Going to LA because there are slightly better hours is dumb.

[JusticeChuckleNutz]

This thread is objectively unhinged

Straight up. OP asked about NYC v. LA. Why are people obsessed with comparing law to investment banking? So many threads devolve into this dumb shit.

Back on topic -- I am in a west coast office and have from time to time worked with partners/groups in NY. I remember thinking to myself at many points, "Man these NY people must not be getting all that much sleep."

"People" are not obsessed with it, lawyers are. Go on Wall Street Oasis, it is not even an argument there which is better because it is as clear as day. How many bankers wish they went to law school as they look back in middle age? How many lawyers regret their path? Lol............

Regarding NY v. LA, of course NY will on average have worse hours in any industry save maybe entertainment. It will be firm and office dependent. If you enjoy living in LA you probably will not like living in NYC and vice versa. Going to LA because there are slightly better hours is dumb.

Fair. By "people", I meant posters on TLS (i.e. lawyers).

Regarding NY v. LA, I was just speaking from my experience -- Wasn't trying to make a generalization. I agree it will be highly firm and office dependent.

[Anonymous User]

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

It’s completely insane to even bring up being CEO of Goldman Sachs. My original point, which was a fair point, is that law is a bit less impressive in NYC because so many other people make equal or greater money.

Since there are only a handful of big bank CEOs, they have nothing to do with this conversation. Should OP go into show business because the CEOs of Disney and Warner Brothers make bank?

They don't have to bring up CEOs. MDs are on call less, make as much or more than a V50/100 partner, and do more interesting work. Lawyers are by no means NYC elite, even the managing partners. They don't get the nicest apartments, the nicest cars, the best schools for their children. If corporate America was a football team, the big firm lawyers would be the locker room janitor cleaning the mess.

Another fine example of a reasonable question asked on TLS derailed by a bunch of weird lawyers arguing over absurd concepts like what the "NYC elite" is (newsflash, a partner making $3-4m at a V-whatever for 15-20 years is comfortably in the "NYC elite" and can most certainly afford a nice apartment, whatever car they want, and whatever school they want for their kids).

Someone at that income will almost certainly not sit on important NYC boards, join the most prestigious clubs and organizations, or send their children to the finest private schools. They may be able to afford the posted tuition, but it is understood a hefty donation is in order to secure a place after demographic balancing, faculty children, and recruited athletes are taken into account. Your definition of "elite" is having two domestic cars, a 3-br apartment with sub-50% down, and a 401(k). You need to aim higher.

All of your comments are 100% funnier when you take into account that you're a random hotel butler from suburban Orlando shilling hard for random WS bankers that you met while they were on their disney vacations. You don't actually know what you're talking about. First, a "hefty donation" isn't actually required to secure a place at these schools (that's just what the banker you talked to had to do to get his dumbass child in after he bombed his ISEE exams 2 years in a row). Second, who cares what "prestigious clubs and organizations" you belong to? Whoop-de-doo, I'm not a member of some stuffy social club that didn't admit women or black people until 1992, where the median age is 82. You're so unhinged lmao, why are you even commenting on this thread?