Mindset of a Kirkland Share Partner Forum

[melgibsonfan]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

[melgibsonfan]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Anonymous User]

I’m an NSP at Kirkland but grew up at more “white shoe” lockstep firms. Posting this for the benefit of law students as we approach recruiting season.

In 2016, the top end of Cravath’s partner scale was $4 million. As a first year share Kirkland partner today, you’re bringing home a little over $2 million and the “middle class” partners easily make $3-4 million. There’s a meaningful cohort of partners making comfortably above $10 million (closer to $20 than $10)

It’s important to put comp into context. You have to realize that your average Kirkland share partner peaks in his or her 40’s and is making substantially more money than God ever intended law firm partners to make.

It‘s also a far more perilous environment. The second they stop producing, their shares get cut - share allocations are re-evaluated every other year. At the lockstep firms, the rainmakers are in their 50’s. At Kirkland, they’re in their 40’s. It’s incredibly difficult to grind under that system for longer than that. Indeed, the Kirkland pension vests in early 50’s to reflect that reality. Pensions at peer firms vest at 62 to 65.

Your average Kirkland share partner is also cash poor. Because he or she is scraping as much of their earnings into co-invest vehicles managed by the firm’s private equity clients, which are long-term investments.

The firm is no longer run by Kirkland partners. The firm committee is populated by powerful partners from the exact firms that everyone believes have better cultures - Cravath, Simpson, Sidley, Weil, etc. But these are the partners that decided money was more important.

So net it out. You have a generation of young overworked partners living in constant fear of share cuts but also have the chance to make more money than any lawyer could have imagined. They’re also cash poor so they don’t “feel” rich on a day-to-day basis.

The ONLY THING these partners care about is maximizing their comp during their “peak” window. They don’t care about the firm, the associates, or their partners. They care about their families and justifying years of toil.

The crazy thing is that this is actually the most refreshing firm I’ve ever worked that. Because they own it. They are honest with themselves and each other about what matters. So if you’re a rockstar associate or NSP in a hot practice group, they will very explicit in showing that they value you. If the economy takes a turn for the worse and the firm does poorly - fuck you. Remember it’s possible for Kirkland to have a record year but still be tightening the belt. Because they’re not focused on the firm. They’re focused on continued profit growth.

Every major firm now thinks this way - whether they admit it or not. But at least Kirkland is transparent about it. The lockstep firms still cling to the bullshit pageantry, which is entirely designed to shame associates into killing themselves in exchange for same money and zero transparency about your partner prospects.

Pick your poison. And you should expect to lateral at least once.

former K&E associate -- feel like people should be paid multipliers to deal with the true internal culture. Comp should be 1.5x market just because its such a brutal mill.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

Thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who made it to IB/MF PE should've tried for entrepreneurship, like Bezos and Musk. The big earnings are even bigger and you can own a massive yacht.

[melgibsonfan]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

Thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who made it to IB/MF PE should've tried for entrepreneurship, like Bezos and Musk. The big earnings are even bigger and you can own a massive yacht.

Different mentality and skill set. You go into big law because you lack creativity, self drive, and a willingness to take risks. You wanted a six to seven figure income with minimal downside risk, your nut is working for a place like KE where you eat shit and can’t explain what you do to your kids until they’re very old because they wouldn’t get it. At least the bankers and buy side careerists make more money for eating said shit.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-sociopath/

OP would you mind breaking down for the forum?

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

Thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who made it to IB/MF PE should've tried for entrepreneurship, like Bezos and Musk. The big earnings are even bigger and you can own a massive yacht.

Different mentality and skill set. You go into big law because you lack creativity, self drive, and a willingness to take risks. You wanted a six to seven figure income with minimal downside risk, your nut is working for a place like KE where you eat shit and can’t explain what you do to your kids until they’re very old because they wouldn’t get it. At least the bankers and buy side careerists make more money for eating said shit.

Biglaw is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with little risk.

Investment banking is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with a higher standard deviation of returns.

[melgibsonfan]

Good link lol

To OP, anyone who made it to be a rainmaker KE partner should’ve tried for IB/MF PE. The big earnings come in earlier and you don’t feel as cash strapped. There are tons of 64 year old PE seat warmers with massive carry that won’t be taken away.

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

Thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who made it to IB/MF PE should've tried for entrepreneurship, like Bezos and Musk. The big earnings are even bigger and you can own a massive yacht.

Different mentality and skill set. You go into big law because you lack creativity, self drive, and a willingness to take risks. You wanted a six to seven figure income with minimal downside risk, your nut is working for a place like KE where you eat shit and can’t explain what you do to your kids until they’re very old because they wouldn’t get it. At least the bankers and buy side careerists make more money for eating said shit.

Biglaw is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with little risk.

Investment banking is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with a higher standard deviation of returns.

Nope. Successful bankers and asset managers make more than successful corporate lawyers. The attrition in big law is about the same as IB, and the attrition in IB is in part because many go onto mega funds. Have fun “turning over” their documents tomorrow night for a closing that may or may not happen.

[Anonymous User]

Are we just naming jobs that pay a lot of money now?

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

Thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who made it to IB/MF PE should've tried for entrepreneurship, like Bezos and Musk. The big earnings are even bigger and you can own a massive yacht.

Different mentality and skill set. You go into big law because you lack creativity, self drive, and a willingness to take risks. You wanted a six to seven figure income with minimal downside risk, your nut is working for a place like KE where you eat shit and can’t explain what you do to your kids until they’re very old because they wouldn’t get it. At least the bankers and buy side careerists make more money for eating said shit.

Biglaw is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with little risk.

Investment banking is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with a higher standard deviation of returns.

Nope. Successful bankers and asset managers make more than successful corporate lawyers. The attrition in big law is about the same as IB, and the attrition in IB is in part because many go onto mega funds. Have fun “turning over” their documents tomorrow night for a closing that may or may not happen.

You want to offer career advice but you don't understand the concept of a standard deviation... Hmmm.

Also, we aren't even talking exit options post-IB and biglaw. Have you seen what fallen analyst and IB associates do after their stint in a bulge bracket? It often ain’t pretty. We are talking sales type jobs (which is what IB and PE are btw) for financial “services.” The clients are wealthy individuals and you have to leach off of them to make a buck while they scream at you for losing their money.

My career advice for you is that if you don’t like your biglaw job just learn what you can to help with the next part of your career and then move on.

[melgibsonfan]

No, jobs that pay a lot MORE money and that are generally in the corporate space. A lot of lawyers could have taken these routes (excel isn’t that hard). If I wanted to name any old job that pays more, I could include breast augmentation surgeon in Miami.

Thanks for clarifying.

Anyone who made it to IB/MF PE should've tried for entrepreneurship, like Bezos and Musk. The big earnings are even bigger and you can own a massive yacht.

Different mentality and skill set. You go into big law because you lack creativity, self drive, and a willingness to take risks. You wanted a six to seven figure income with minimal downside risk, your nut is working for a place like KE where you eat shit and can’t explain what you do to your kids until they’re very old because they wouldn’t get it. At least the bankers and buy side careerists make more money for eating said shit.

Biglaw is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with little risk.

Investment banking is like an investment that has average returns of 10% per year with a higher standard deviation of returns.

Nope. Successful bankers and asset managers make more than successful corporate lawyers. The attrition in big law is about the same as IB, and the attrition in IB is in part because many go onto mega funds. Have fun “turning over” their documents tomorrow night for a closing that may or may not happen.

You want to offer career advice but you don't understand the concept of a standard deviation... Hmmm.

Also, we aren't even talking exit options post-IB and biglaw. Have you seen what fallen analyst and IB associates do after their stint in a bulge bracket? It often ain’t pretty. We are talking sales type jobs (which is what IB and PE are btw) for financial “services.” The clients are wealthy individuals and you have to leach off of them to make a buck while they scream at you for losing their money.

My career advice for you is that if you don’t like your biglaw job just learn what you can to help with the next part of your career and then move on.

Your standard deviation claim is wrong. Someone who leaves IB a year in is leagues ahead of a big law washout who leaves a year in and this is lockstep through partner/MD/buyside exit op/whatever seniority metric you want. In other words, the downsides to IB/asset management are way lower than big law, with much higher upside.

PE isn’t sales. The investor relations department is but when people say PE, they’re talking about investment side roles usually. You have to take into account macroeconomic trends, local business climates, deal with operating partners for portfolio companies, and calculate return metrics. There are hard skills and judgment calls, something transactional attorneys know little about at a high level. IB is sales in that you are pitching M&A/bond issuances to clients, but it still has to make economic sense.

A “bad” outcome after 1-2 years in IB is F500 corporate development where you get paid low six figures not to be on call and to have a normal life. Plus you get stock options, which most partners at most firms don’t even get. They’re also 23.

[nixy]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

[melgibsonfan]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

[nixy]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

but that argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. for god's sake give it a rest.

[melgibsonfan]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

but that argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. for god's sake give it a rest.

Will do. All I’ll say is that Kirkland partner should’ve applied his mindset to more remunerative endeavors since all he or she cares about is $$$$$$$$

[Anonymous User]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

[melgibsonfan]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

BBs have broaden their recruiting pools a lot since 08. The top 100 universities can get you a shot with a good gpa, major, and networking abilities.

You’d be surprised how many Ivy League graduates throw it all away at age 22 to go to a random T13 law school. Even Wharton alums. My posts speak to them. Don’t go to uva or Cornell law. That boutique bank will take you so much further for the same effort.

[Anonymous User]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

BBs have broaden their recruiting pools a lot since 08. The top 100 universities can get you a shot with a good gpa, major, and networking abilities.

You’d be surprised how many Ivy League graduates throw it all away at age 22 to go to a random T13 law school. Even Wharton alums. My posts speak to them. Don’t go to uva or Cornell law. That boutique bank will take you so much further for the same effort.

The thing people forget in these conversations is this is only true for transactional because they aren't real lawyers. Litigators are real lawyers who practice a grand profession, so it might make sense to choose that path even though you make less money than bankers do. Transactional are not, but are simply the JV version of bankers, so in that case, it would always objectively make more sense to go into finance. I feel like this distinction doesn't get emphasized enough.

[Anonymous User]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

BBs have broaden their recruiting pools a lot since 08. The top 100 universities can get you a shot with a good gpa, major, and networking abilities.

You’d be surprised how many Ivy League graduates throw it all away at age 22 to go to a random T13 law school. Even Wharton alums. My posts speak to them. Don’t go to uva or Cornell law. That boutique bank will take you so much further for the same effort.

The thing people forget in these conversations is this is only true for transactional because they aren't real lawyers. Litigators are real lawyers who practice a grand profession, so it might make sense to choose that path even though you make less money than bankers do. Transactional are not, but are simply the JV version of bankers, so in that case, it would always objectively make more sense to go into finance. I feel like this distinction doesn't get emphasized enough.

Transactional lawyers are the only real lawyers because they keep clients out of court and trial lawyers are the only real lawyers because they actually go to trial and litigators are the only real lawyers because they use civ pro and evidence during settlement negotiations.

[Anonymous User]

there are more than a few TTT grad DUI and personal injury lawyers making seven figures with mid-afternoon tee times in my city but no one is posting "Mindset of a Mid-Size City DUI/PI Lawyer" threads.

But being a Kirkland partner sounds cool too.

[Anonymous User]

Never has the chasm between litigation and transactional seemed wider than while I was reading this thread.

[Anonymous User]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

BBs have broaden their recruiting pools a lot since 08. The top 100 universities can get you a shot with a good gpa, major, and networking abilities.

You’d be surprised how many Ivy League graduates throw it all away at age 22 to go to a random T13 law school. Even Wharton alums. My posts speak to them. Don’t go to uva or Cornell law. That boutique bank will take you so much further for the same effort.

The thing people forget in these conversations is this is only true for transactional because they aren't real lawyers. Litigators are real lawyers who practice a grand profession, so it might make sense to choose that path even though you make less money than bankers do. Transactional are not, but are simply the JV version of bankers, so in that case, it would always objectively make more sense to go into finance. I feel like this distinction doesn't get emphasized enough.

i dare you to look the transactional partner whose clients are paying your salary straight in the eyes and say this

[Anonymous User]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

BBs have broaden their recruiting pools a lot since 08. The top 100 universities can get you a shot with a good gpa, major, and networking abilities.

You’d be surprised how many Ivy League graduates throw it all away at age 22 to go to a random T13 law school. Even Wharton alums. My posts speak to them. Don’t go to uva or Cornell law. That boutique bank will take you so much further for the same effort.

The thing people forget in these conversations is this is only true for transactional because they aren't real lawyers. Litigators are real lawyers who practice a grand profession, so it might make sense to choose that path even though you make less money than bankers do. Transactional are not, but are simply the JV version of bankers, so in that case, it would always objectively make more sense to go into finance. I feel like this distinction doesn't get emphasized enough.

Yeah, I was an investment banking analyst at a bulge bracket bank before law school. I left to go to a T6 because I wanted to be a litigator. IB is absolutely horrendous at the analyst/associate level, but it probably is a better financial path than biglaw transactional. I honestly still don't even know what most transactional attorneys do but IB work is painfully boring and the overall hours are almost certainly worse than standard biglaw. But it seemed like a pretty sweet gig if you could stick around and make it to ED/MD level.

[melgibsonfan]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

BBs have broaden their recruiting pools a lot since 08. The top 100 universities can get you a shot with a good gpa, major, and networking abilities.

You’d be surprised how many Ivy League graduates throw it all away at age 22 to go to a random T13 law school. Even Wharton alums. My posts speak to them. Don’t go to uva or Cornell law. That boutique bank will take you so much further for the same effort.

The thing people forget in these conversations is this is only true for transactional because they aren't real lawyers. Litigators are real lawyers who practice a grand profession, so it might make sense to choose that path even though you make less money than bankers do. Transactional are not, but are simply the JV version of bankers, so in that case, it would always objectively make more sense to go into finance. I feel like this distinction doesn't get emphasized enough.

i dare you to look the transactional partner whose clients are paying your salary straight in the eyes and say this

Doesn’t make it untrue. It’s like telling that partner his wife is fat and also cheats on him with their pool boy, who she gives his money to in allowance. Better kept to yourself, he knows the score.

[melgibsonfan]

Could we just take IB vs. biglaw debate as read based on the umpteen other times it gets rehashed here and move on?

I don’t like disinformation being spread to college students who use these forums for major life decisions. Only a sucker would choose to go to law school for corporate over IB at a BB at age 22.

This argument doesn't really make sense to me. BULGE BRACKET INVESTMENT BANKING is one of those things you have to decide you want to do at like 19 and then align all of your shit towards achieving it - and that's assuming you're already at one of like twenty schools. Truly doing the banking path is not really possible if you miss the boat at 19/20. Law school, on the other hand, you can decide on until you're like 30 and have it be fully available to you. People aren't deciding between the two at 22 from a blank slate.

BBs have broaden their recruiting pools a lot since 08. The top 100 universities can get you a shot with a good gpa, major, and networking abilities.

You’d be surprised how many Ivy League graduates throw it all away at age 22 to go to a random T13 law school. Even Wharton alums. My posts speak to them. Don’t go to uva or Cornell law. That boutique bank will take you so much further for the same effort.

The thing people forget in these conversations is this is only true for transactional because they aren't real lawyers. Litigators are real lawyers who practice a grand profession, so it might make sense to choose that path even though you make less money than bankers do. Transactional are not, but are simply the JV version of bankers, so in that case, it would always objectively make more sense to go into finance. I feel like this distinction doesn't get emphasized enough.

Yeah, I was an investment banking analyst at a bulge bracket bank before law school. I left to go to a T6 because I wanted to be a litigator. IB is absolutely horrendous at the analyst/associate level, but it probably is a better financial path than biglaw transactional. I honestly still don't even know what most transactional attorneys do but IB work is painfully boring and the overall hours are almost certainly worse than standard biglaw. But it seemed like a pretty sweet gig if you could stick around and make it to ED/MD level.

It is more boring in big law. Litigation is real law.