Restructuring megathread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone who made the jump from RX law to RX banking—how did you learn the modeling? I’m interested in that path and networking with ex-lawyers in the field, but they’re all older and don’t know what the best services. I’ve found a restructuring-specific service online but it looks like an overlay on a strong modeling background.

The online banking prep courses are pretty good. The actual excel structuring comes a lot from playing around with templates and reps on practice builds. But you won't make much progress unless you have a strong foundation in accounting, so review banking guides etc first to get the accounting stuff down. Curious: why are you interested in transitioning to banking? RX banking isn't really more profitable than law practice at the senior levels, is more hours, more stress, and you're taking more risk that you won't translate as well to banking. You don't necessarily need to go to banking to go to a distressed debt fund if that's what your end goal is.

[Anonymous User]

Is entering the RX field right now a gamble?

We had a RX associate from Latham speak at a panel at my school this week. They mentioned that there is insecurity in where their work will go right now because inflation, employment rates, and the stock market aren't making sense when taken into the aggregate. They said there was a huge covid-related influx because companies that would have had 2-3 more years reached maturity sooner and took the restructuring route, and that right now, the work is steady but he feels uncertain about the future due to how the market has been.

Wondering if RX people here agree...

[Anonymous User]

Former Rx Associate that went in-house here. Path was 2 yrs Rx (all debtor), 1.5 yrs Finance, now in-house in a commercial/transactional role at an F100. I took Rx out of law school because my options were between a Weil/KE or like a V90 so it seemed like an easy choice.

Happy to take questions or explain the path. A few initial observations and points based on what I'm seeing in the thread:

1) Companies loved my bankruptcy experience and I think it actually gave me an advantage throughout the process overall, but I'm doubtful that I would have gotten past interview screening without the conventional corporate experience.

All-in-all I'm not sure how to feel about where it put me personally on the lateral experience, but there's no doubt that it would have been easier to go in-house from pure M&A. That said, I couldn't stand the M&A work I did in Biglaw so who knows if I would have made it the 4 years I even did if I'd started there. Will note, however, that if your choice is between Kirkland/Weil Rx or some random V80 M&A, choose Kirkland/Weil. They're great firms and your lateral process will be easier coming from them - trust me.

Overall, Rx at a highly-ranked firm puts you in a position to go in-house, but you need to put more effort in and statistical realities are statistical realities as far as entering your conventional in-house roles. The fact is that of the 50+ attorneys that I knew well and kept up with in my Rx group, 40+ of them are still in bankruptcy practice or practicing in the distressed context at a fund/bank. That said, I don't know why this board looks at those options as "bad exits" - the people I know in those roles make great money and are happy in them.

2) I did Rx work, Finance work, some M&A, Privacy, Cap Markets, and Exec Comp work while in Biglaw. Rx work was far and away the most interesting and intellectually stimulating work I did. I think it's probably the least boring practice area in all of Biglaw. Unlike what a Partner might say, I think that the work you will do as a Junior and Midlevel is an important item to evaluate - most law students will never sniff partner, so if you like the work it can help you put in your 3-5 years more easily.

3) Certain firms *cough cough* have overhired in their restructuring groups and are paring down due to lack of demand. I have live contacts at a certain Amlaw 1 that confirm this remains ongoing and that while the upper half of the group is working consistently, the rest of the group isn't anywhere close to 100% busy and continues to stealth associates (many of whom are not low performers). Thus far the markets haven't collapsed like everyone thought. Worth at least considering if you want to enter the practice group for its counter-cyclical nature.

4) Beware laterals into Finance, or at least have eyes wide open about it. I stuck it out for awhile but Finance practice was awful and boring compared to restructuring. The exits are also primarily into Banks, which I found discouraging. I had to put a lot of legwork in to finally get a good opportunity at a big company in-house.

[Anonymous User]

Is entering the RX field right now a gamble?

We had a RX associate from Latham speak at a panel at my school this week. They mentioned that there is insecurity in where their work will go right now because inflation, employment rates, and the stock market aren't making sense when taken into the aggregate. They said there was a huge covid-related influx because companies that would have had 2-3 more years reached maturity sooner and took the restructuring route, and that right now, the work is steady but he feels uncertain about the future due to how the market has been.

Wondering if RX people here agree...

In general if you're still in school I would avoid making long term decisions based on expected market trends. Nobody really knows what things will be like next quarter let alone in 2-3 years.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone who made the jump from RX law to RX banking—how did you learn the modeling? I’m interested in that path and networking with ex-lawyers in the field, but they’re all older and don’t know what the best services. I’ve found a restructuring-specific service online but it looks like an overlay on a strong modeling background.

The online banking prep courses are pretty good. The actual excel structuring comes a lot from playing around with templates and reps on practice builds. But you won't make much progress unless you have a strong foundation in accounting, so review banking guides etc first to get the accounting stuff down. Curious: why are you interested in transitioning to banking? RX banking isn't really more profitable than law practice at the senior levels, is more hours, more stress, and you're taking more risk that you won't translate as well to banking. You don't necessarily need to go to banking to go to a distressed debt fund if that's what your end goal is.

I’ll take the risk to get out of our awful industry. We’re absurdly risk-averse, convinced of our moral superiority when the only thing we have over the bankers is a piece of paper, and add way less value than they do. Law firm life might not be as stupidly up its own ass as law school is, but I’d rather be up until 3am as a banker every night than hang out with lawyers ever again

Edit: As a better explanation—I hated law school. It was too hidebound and focused on things like “precedent” and “doctrine” and any class I could find that focused on dealmaking/non-legal dynamics in industries I gobbled up. My professors recommended I do RX and while I love the field, it’s the financial elements of the restructuring that I like, not the dumb motions we have to put before the bankruptcy court.

I’ve debated wholly getting out and launching a startup—and may still do that—but I’d like to try the other side first to see if that’s more up my alley.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone who made the jump from RX law to RX banking—how did you learn the modeling? I’m interested in that path and networking with ex-lawyers in the field, but they’re all older and don’t know what the best services. I’ve found a restructuring-specific service online but it looks like an overlay on a strong modeling background.

The online banking prep courses are pretty good. The actual excel structuring comes a lot from playing around with templates and reps on practice builds. But you won't make much progress unless you have a strong foundation in accounting, so review banking guides etc first to get the accounting stuff down. Curious: why are you interested in transitioning to banking? RX banking isn't really more profitable than law practice at the senior levels, is more hours, more stress, and you're taking more risk that you won't translate as well to banking. You don't necessarily need to go to banking to go to a distressed debt fund if that's what your end goal is.

I’ll take the risk to get out of our awful industry. We’re absurdly risk-averse, convinced of our moral superiority when the only thing we have over the bankers is a piece of paper, and add way less value than they do. Law firm life might not be as stupidly up its own ass as law school is, but I’d rather be up until 3am as a banker every night than hang out with lawyers ever again

Edit: As a better explanation—I hated law school. It was too hidebound and focused on things like “precedent” and “doctrine” and any class I could find that focused on dealmaking/non-legal dynamics in industries I gobbled up. My professors recommended I do RX and while I love the field, it’s the financial elements of the restructuring that I like, not the dumb motions we have to put before the bankruptcy court.

I’ve debated wholly getting out and launching a startup—and may still do that—but I’d like to try the other side first to see if that’s more up my alley.

By all means try banking, but I'd avoid falling into the trap of idealizing what their role in the business process is like a law student might for a Biglaw attorney. It's no more glamorous than what the lawyers do, and I'm confident that you won't find the egos or attitudes/personalities to be an improvement either. By all means if you prefer excel over word, it might be the way to go, but the grass is not greener IMO.

[njdevils2626]

Is entering the RX field right now a gamble?

We had a RX associate from Latham speak at a panel at my school this week. They mentioned that there is insecurity in where their work will go right now because inflation, employment rates, and the stock market aren't making sense when taken into the aggregate. They said there was a huge covid-related influx because companies that would have had 2-3 more years reached maturity sooner and took the restructuring route, and that right now, the work is steady but he feels uncertain about the future due to how the market has been.

Wondering if RX people here agree...

In general if you're still in school I would avoid making long term decisions based on expected market trends. Nobody really knows what things will be like next quarter let alone in 2-3 years.

The response here is absolutely correct, but I also disagree with the Latham associate's thoughts on this. While hes absolutely right that the markets amd economy in general aren't acting typically. But I disagree that it creates any uncertainty in work flow. Rather, I think it forces us to be a little more creative.

Firstly, when Covid first started everyone was nervous and lenders were extremely willing to enter into forbearance agreements that kicked the can down the road to 2024ish with scheduled maturities climbing from then until 2028. So especially in a high interest rate and inflationary environment, there's going to be plenty of distressed companies requiring attention. But more importantly, I've worked through multiple bull and bear cycles and simply put the work has never dried up. Maybe I'm just lucky or in a good spot, but in good economies there are always refinancing and strategic restructurings available (and lenders willing to be more creative in taking current haircuts to get equity upside in strategic transactions) and in bad economies, well, that's self explanatory.

I don't have any concern for the health of the restructuring industry

[existentialcrisis]

Former Rx Associate that went in-house here. Path was 2 yrs Rx (all debtor), 1.5 yrs Finance, now in-house in a commercial/transactional role at an F100. I took Rx out of law school because my options were between a Weil/KE or like a V90 so it seemed like an easy choice.

Happy to take questions or explain the path. A few initial observations and points based on what I'm seeing in the thread:


All-in-all I'm not sure how to feel about where it put me personally on the lateral experience, but there's no doubt that it would have been easier to go in-house from pure M&A. That said, I couldn't stand the M&A work I did in Biglaw so who knows if I would have made it the 4 years I even did if I'd started there. Will note, however, that if your choice is between Kirkland/Weil Rx or some random V80 M&A, choose Kirkland/Weil. They're great firms and your lateral process will be easier coming from them - trust me.

Overall, Rx at a highly-ranked firm puts you in a position to go in-house, but you need to put more effort in and statistical realities are statistical realities as far as entering your conventional in-house roles. The fact is that of the 50+ attorneys that I knew well and kept up with in my Rx group, 40+ of them are still in bankruptcy practice or practicing in the distressed context at a fund/bank. That said, I don't know why this board looks at those options as "bad exits" - the people I know in those roles make great money and are happy in them.

Citation needed on the bolded big time. Top M&A firms (maybe not Wachtell/Cravath but plenty of others) take corporate associates from lower ranked firms all of the time and I strongly suspect that they would much prefer to take a lateral that knows how to do the work rather than one from a fancy BK practice that they'll need to retool.

On the second point, I don't think distressed funds are a bad exit at all if that's what you want. You can definitely make lots of money doing that and I have no doubt that the work's interesting. What I do think and what I came in here warning people about is that restructuring is objectively a bad choice (if you have options) if you want a 9-5, decently well paying in house job some day, which is something many people want or come to want after a few years of grinding at a firm.

[Anonymous User]

Former Rx Associate that went in-house here. Path was 2 yrs Rx (all debtor), 1.5 yrs Finance, now in-house in a commercial/transactional role at an F100. I took Rx out of law school because my options were between a Weil/KE or like a V90 so it seemed like an easy choice.

Happy to take questions or explain the path. A few initial observations and points based on what I'm seeing in the thread:


All-in-all I'm not sure how to feel about where it put me personally on the lateral experience, but there's no doubt that it would have been easier to go in-house from pure M&A. That said, I couldn't stand the M&A work I did in Biglaw so who knows if I would have made it the 4 years I even did if I'd started there. Will note, however, that if your choice is between Kirkland/Weil Rx or some random V80 M&A, choose Kirkland/Weil. They're great firms and your lateral process will be easier coming from them - trust me.

Overall, Rx at a highly-ranked firm puts you in a position to go in-house, but you need to put more effort in and statistical realities are statistical realities as far as entering your conventional in-house roles. The fact is that of the 50+ attorneys that I knew well and kept up with in my Rx group, 40+ of them are still in bankruptcy practice or practicing in the distressed context at a fund/bank. That said, I don't know why this board looks at those options as "bad exits" - the people I know in those roles make great money and are happy in them.

Citation needed on the bolded big time. Top M&A firms (maybe not Wachtell/Cravath but plenty of others) take corporate associates from lower ranked firms all of the time and I strongly suspect that they would much prefer to take a lateral that knows how to do the work rather than one from a fancy BK practice that they'll need to retool.

On the second point, I don't think distressed funds are a bad exit at all if that's what you want. You can definitely make lots of money doing that and I have no doubt that the work's interesting. What I do think and what I came in here warning people about is that restructuring is objectively a bad choice (if you have options) if you want a 9-5, decently well paying in house job some day, which is something many people want or come to want after a few years of grinding at a firm.

What are the hours and pay like at distressed funds?

[Anonymous User]

Former Rx Associate that went in-house here. Path was 2 yrs Rx (all debtor), 1.5 yrs Finance, now in-house in a commercial/transactional role at an F100. I took Rx out of law school because my options were between a Weil/KE or like a V90 so it seemed like an easy choice.

Happy to take questions or explain the path. A few initial observations and points based on what I'm seeing in the thread:


All-in-all I'm not sure how to feel about where it put me personally on the lateral experience, but there's no doubt that it would have been easier to go in-house from pure M&A. That said, I couldn't stand the M&A work I did in Biglaw so who knows if I would have made it the 4 years I even did if I'd started there. Will note, however, that if your choice is between Kirkland/Weil Rx or some random V80 M&A, choose Kirkland/Weil. They're great firms and your lateral process will be easier coming from them - trust me.

Overall, Rx at a highly-ranked firm puts you in a position to go in-house, but you need to put more effort in and statistical realities are statistical realities as far as entering your conventional in-house roles. The fact is that of the 50+ attorneys that I knew well and kept up with in my Rx group, 40+ of them are still in bankruptcy practice or practicing in the distressed context at a fund/bank. That said, I don't know why this board looks at those options as "bad exits" - the people I know in those roles make great money and are happy in them.

Citation needed on the bolded big time. Top M&A firms (maybe not Wachtell/Cravath but plenty of others) take corporate associates from lower ranked firms all of the time and I strongly suspect that they would much prefer to take a lateral that knows how to do the work rather than one from a fancy BK practice that they'll need to retool.

On the second point, I don't think distressed funds are a bad exit at all if that's what you want. You can definitely make lots of money doing that and I have no doubt that the work's interesting. What I do think and what I came in here warning people about is that restructuring is objectively a bad choice (if you have options) if you want a 9-5, decently well paying in house job some day, which is something many people want or come to want after a few years of grinding at a firm.

I suppose I can only engage in a battle of anecdotes here, but my experience is quite the opposite. If you're coming from KE or Weil Rx you'll have your pick of top M&A groups as long as you leave years 2-3 and aren't too senior yet. This is especially true if you can do some M&A work while in the Bk group (not uncommon for Debtors to acquire companies while in Chapter 11, or to just hop on a few M&A projects when slow).

I can't speak to the experience of coming from a V80, but my logic is that it's a no brainer to start at the higher up firm because you'll have no problem lateraling if you want that while also having the V10 credential from a top Bk group. It's the more risk-resistant option, especially when you consider that you can often lateral without issue within the firm as well (assuming you want a large transactional group like M&A, finance, cap markets and not some niche regulatory practice). Again I can't speak to the V80 perspective, but anecdotally the above was all true to my personal experience. I suppose the one caveat is that this all only applies up to your third year or so. Once you start becoming a true midlevel you're correct in that retooling becomes a problem.

[Anonymous User]

3) Certain firms *cough cough* have overhired in their restructuring groups and are paring down due to lack of demand. I have live contacts at a certain Amlaw 1 that confirm this remains ongoing and that while the upper half of the group is working consistently, the rest of the group isn't anywhere close to 100% busy and continues to stealth associates (many of whom are not low performers). Thus far the markets haven't collapsed like everyone thought. Worth at least considering if you want to enter the practice group for its counter-cyclical nature.

Can anyone that works at KE confirm this?

[Anonymous User]

I'm an incoming bankruptcy clerk that's looking to return to Chicago. My SA was on a different city and they wouldn't transfer me to Chi, so I'm looking to apply to firms. Is there any advice about the application timeline, and tips to network when my clerkship's in a different city? Would a bankruptcy clerkship hurt my prospects? I've heard that some firms don't give credit for the clerkship, is that true?

[Anonymous User]

3) Certain firms *cough cough* have overhired in their restructuring groups and are paring down due to lack of demand. I have live contacts at a certain Amlaw 1 that confirm this remains ongoing and that while the upper half of the group is working consistently, the rest of the group isn't anywhere close to 100% busy and continues to stealth associates (many of whom are not low performers). Thus far the markets haven't collapsed like everyone thought. Worth at least considering if you want to enter the practice group for its counter-cyclical nature.

Can anyone that works at KE confirm this?

As far as I’m aware, no, not really. There were a couple of layoffs from the group in the 30-person “mass layoff” from earlier, but most of the recent leavers have been voluntary from my perspective. Granted, I would be a little careful if you’re a low performer in Chicago, since those people will be cut first (since NYC is now the gravitational center of the group).

[Anonymous User]

Is restructuring male dominated at most firms? I'm thinking about the field and am interested in Kirkland because of its debtor work but I was told by a 3L that summered there last year that there were about 25 restructuring summers in their office and only 5 of them were women. In general, out of the 25 people, she said only 3 out of 25 were people of color.

I understand that big law overall is pretty white but is this the norm in restructuring at Kirkland? I'm worried about how well I would fit in as a woman of color.

[Anonymous User]

3) Certain firms *cough cough* have overhired in their restructuring groups and are paring down due to lack of demand. I have live contacts at a certain Amlaw 1 that confirm this remains ongoing and that while the upper half of the group is working consistently, the rest of the group isn't anywhere close to 100% busy and continues to stealth associates (many of whom are not low performers). Thus far the markets haven't collapsed like everyone thought. Worth at least considering if you want to enter the practice group for its counter-cyclical nature.

Can anyone that works at KE confirm this?

As far as I’m aware, no, not really. There were a couple of layoffs from the group in the 30-person “mass layoff” from earlier, but most of the recent leavers have been voluntary from my perspective. Granted, I would be a little careful if you’re a low performer in Chicago, since those people will be cut first (since NYC is now the gravitational center of the group).

Of the Chicago leavers that I know, they all left completely voluntarily in the sense that they weren’t stealthed but they felt that they would be next if stealths were to happen.

[Anonymous User]

Former Rx Associate that went in-house here. Path was 2 yrs Rx (all debtor), 1.5 yrs Finance, now in-house in a commercial/transactional role at an F100. I took Rx out of law school because my options were between a Weil/KE or like a V90 so it seemed like an easy choice.

Happy to take questions or explain the path. A few initial observations and points based on what I'm seeing in the thread:


All-in-all I'm not sure how to feel about where it put me personally on the lateral experience, but there's no doubt that it would have been easier to go in-house from pure M&A. That said, I couldn't stand the M&A work I did in Biglaw so who knows if I would have made it the 4 years I even did if I'd started there. Will note, however, that if your choice is between Kirkland/Weil Rx or some random V80 M&A, choose Kirkland/Weil. They're great firms and your lateral process will be easier coming from them - trust me.

Overall, Rx at a highly-ranked firm puts you in a position to go in-house, but you need to put more effort in and statistical realities are statistical realities as far as entering your conventional in-house roles. The fact is that of the 50+ attorneys that I knew well and kept up with in my Rx group, 40+ of them are still in bankruptcy practice or practicing in the distressed context at a fund/bank. That said, I don't know why this board looks at those options as "bad exits" - the people I know in those roles make great money and are happy in them.

Citation needed on the bolded big time. Top M&A firms (maybe not Wachtell/Cravath but plenty of others) take corporate associates from lower ranked firms all of the time and I strongly suspect that they would much prefer to take a lateral that knows how to do the work rather than one from a fancy BK practice that they'll need to retool.

On the second point, I don't think distressed funds are a bad exit at all if that's what you want. You can definitely make lots of money doing that and I have no doubt that the work's interesting. What I do think and what I came in here warning people about is that restructuring is objectively a bad choice (if you have options) if you want a 9-5, decently well paying in house job some day, which is something many people want or come to want after a few years of grinding at a firm.

What are the hours and pay like at distressed funds?

Not as high as you would think unless you are at one of the funds who can hold 200m+ of cost. A shares partner at K&E or PW or wherever will likely outearn a senior analyst (partner) at a fund like Marblegate over a ten year horizon. Still a good living but returns aren’t what they used to be and fees have compressed.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard people say that junior (1st and 2nd year) restructuring work requires more intelligence/brain power than junior corporate work. Is this correct? I've heard this from restructuring and corporate associates at my firm last summer. It was mentioned that the learning curve for restructuring (especially debtor side work) is much steeper as there are several very complicated financial concepts that you have to master quickly to do your job.

Would those in the field say this sounds right? I'm wondering if this is field dependent or maybe just the firm dependent. The firm I summered at has a very well-respected restructuring practice.

It is true that junior Rx work is more intellectually challenging than most corporate work, but the bar for that is not very high. And a lot of junior Rx work is grunt work. On the debtor side that means things like retention applications, first day motions, other motions that don’t really matter. On the creditor side, it’s more like traditional corporate. I would much prefer junior Rx work to traditional corporate, but if you like straight transactional work that may not be your preference.

[Anonymous User]

Going to be a first year associate at a debtor heavy shop this fall but I don't know much about restructuring at all. What are some resources I can use to familiarize myself with restructuring foundations prior to starting?

[Anonymous User]

Going to be a first year associate at a debtor heavy shop this fall but I don't know much about restructuring at all. What are some resources I can use to familiarize myself with restructuring foundations prior to starting?

Cocaine.

[Anonymous User]

Rising third year from a general corporate group considering trying to lateral to a restructuring group.

I’ve done both debtor- and creditor-side work. Based on my (admittedly limited) experience, the creditor-side stuff seems to be less of a grind from an hours perspective (not having to file all the first/second day motions, draft a plan, etc.). Creditor work also seems to be more “in the law” than debtor stuff, which seems heavily fact-oriented and a bit like what I imagine distressed consultants do.

(i) Are my assessments of debtor vs. creditor correct? (ii) What are the most reputable NY creditor-side shops?

[Anonymous User]

I chose K&E over PW and DPW for RX. I will (hopefully) be an incoming associate this fall. I am interested in debtor work but don't know much about corporate restructuring (took bankruptcy in law school which focused primarily on creditor rights). I have two questions:

1. What are some things I should do/read to get a head start on understanding the more complicated financial concepts I need to know for debtor side work? I've heard that there is a steeper learning curve in bankruptcy than in corporate groups.

2. Is there a major difference in the culture of the bankruptcy groups at K&E, DPW, and PW? I liked the people I met at K&E last summer. Just wondering what the experience has been for those working on deals across from the bankruptcy groups at these different firms.

[Anonymous User]

I chose K&E over PW and DPW for RX. I will (hopefully) be an incoming associate this fall. I am interested in debtor work but don't know much about corporate restructuring (took bankruptcy in law school which focused primarily on creditor rights). I have two questions:

1. What are some things I should do/read to get a head start on understanding the more complicated financial concepts I need to know for debtor side work? I've heard that there is a steeper learning curve in bankruptcy than in corporate groups.

2. Is there a major difference in the culture of the bankruptcy groups at K&E, DPW, and PW? I liked the people I met at K&E last summer. Just wondering what the experience has been for those working on deals across from the bankruptcy groups at these different firms.

BUMP. Would really appreciate if anyone could answer #1!

[Anonymous User]

Serious answer is that you should enjoy your summer and not worry about this. As a junior, you're not going to need to know more complicated concepts. Your focus should be learning the basics of the Code, first-day prep, and how your firm operates.

You'll learn the more complicated concepts over time and with reps, and nothing you read/do right now will make sense in any event.

[Anonymous User]

How does one make partner in rx? Obviously building a book of business wouldn't be the same as in most corporate groups. So what kinds of things matter?

[Anonymous User]

There seems to be an uptick in interest in restructuring. I have a lot of questions as someone strongly considering the field. Figured this is a good place for all restructuring related questions.

Rx rising 4th year (Can't believe I'm saying those words) just to give my experience directed generally at the tread after reading a few peoples' questions:

1. Depends on where you practice, not all firms are equal. The Weil, Kirkland of the Debtor world will obviously yield you different results. Have seen people leave for distressed funds, other company side roles, take secondments and stay where they were working, etc. Creditor-side, if you're at a place like Gibson, then you're interacting everyday with major lending and financial institutions, if you build those relationships with people in your year at the Houlihan Lokeys and Lazards of the world, certainly you'll find there is a broader world of opportunity available to you for networking.

2. The work is extremely challenging, and very interesting no matter what side you're on. The tasks are varied, whether it's drafting an objection, organizing the top secret holdings info for a group, attending lots of calls where people yell at each other, or watching a company's position change overtime (either from bad to worse or worse to better) are all superb aspects of the RX game. It stays interesting even though there is also a lot of repetition. Debtor side you might be working on two to there massive debtor cases; creditor side you're working on dozens of cases throughout the year because you might negotiate and execute a DIP a Restructuring Support Agreement on a 1-2 month timeline, rinse and repeat it all again on another case. Things are electric before a filing, they cool down, then you join a new case and do it all again. Currently, I'm billing regularly to 8 cases (per my last count).

3. I went into bankruptcy because I liked it the most in law school and want to know about debt as we come to a pretty challenging economic time. Our economy is built on debt, knowing a lot about it sometimes feels a bit like a superpower. But, it's a really challenging area of big law. Two of the best pieces of advice I've been given: "half the battle is not getting overwhelmed", and "don't get discouraged." It's a tough department wherever you go to practice in. I think it's worth noting that 5 years in big law can financially change your life and make you a great candidate for a lot of positions, if you "only" end up in big law for five years - you still made it farther than a lot of others! I don't know what I'll do when my number is up in big law, I don't think I'll make partner (I'm not the best at the job even though I do try really hard). But, I'm also not concerned with what I'll do afterward. Hoping to just bag cash for the next year, pay down loans and see where the river takes me.

4. The one constant of every firm I've been in, and I've been in a few, is that the bankruptcy group is always filled with high biller workaholics. I think the culture is starting to shift the tiniest bit after the pandemic, but when things are on you're on. Deals are usually staffed pretty leanly, even for super large matters, and you're given a lot of client interaction very young. Lots of listservs to embarrass yourself on, high expectations, and sometimes an unforgiving atmosphere. Some days I hate it, but I know for a fact that I would not have survived as a corporate M&A associate or a litigation associate without the bankruptcy aspect. So, one way to see it is that there aren't a lot of great exit options, the other way to see it is that picking something you find really interesting can give you a good run in big law, leave you with some good connections, and put you in a great place to take advantage of whatever career resources your law firm has for associates thinking of transitioning (and most firms have a lot).

TL;DR, pick what you're interested in and don't forget that firms have resources to help associates looking to leave big law and transition to clients, government, or other positions. Bankruptcy is a "fast-paced" environment with a "work-hard, play-hard culture" that can attract the typical gunner personalities. The groups really depend on the personalities but all will expect you to bust your ass on the timesheet. Livable because if you are well liked in your group, you'll always have something to do to pass the time. "On balance, in balance."