Career Advice - Kind of Hate Corporate Forum

[nealric]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

Would your advice be the same for one at K&E as your response mentions V5 more than once ? Thanks !

Yes - despite its controversial nature in these forums, KE is extremely well respected in the real world. I actually came from KE and I found it very funny how well I was treated in interviews and job offers because of how much it contrasted with the rhetoric on these boards and behind closed doors at other firms.

Coming from an in-house side, I don't think firms are as differentiated as a lot of folks seem think they are. If you come from a biglaw firm they have heard of (and even better worked with), and your practice dovetails well with the role, you are likely to be taken seriously. Nobody sits around comparing whether Candidate A is better than Candidate B because the former was at Kirkland and the latter was at S&C unless they had some specific relationship with the relevant group at one or the other.

The main difference between firms is similar to the difference between sub-groups as it just impacts what experience you get and the clients you work for. It's generally going to be easier if you've already worked for the company as a client or one of their competitors. I don't know enough Watchtell folks to know about their exits, but given that they mostly work on major company life event type matters, they do likely get more exposure to the highest-level folks at a given company (rather than the rank and file in-house people who work bread and butter BD deals). That could potentially result in unique opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

Would your advice be the same for one at K&E as your response mentions V5 more than once ? Thanks !

Yes - despite its controversial nature in these forums, KE is extremely well respected in the real world. I actually came from KE and I found it very funny how well I was treated in interviews and job offers because of how much it contrasted with the rhetoric on these boards and behind closed doors at other firms.

Coming from an in-house side, I don't think firms are as differentiated as a lot of folks seem think they are. If you come from a biglaw firm they have heard of (and even better worked with), and your practice dovetails well with the role, you are likely to be taken seriously. Nobody sits around comparing whether Candidate A is better than Candidate B because the former was at Kirkland and the latter was at S&C unless they had some specific relationship with the relevant group at one or the other.

The main difference between firms is similar to the difference between sub-groups as it just impacts what experience you get and the clients you work for. It's generally going to be easier if you've already worked for the company as a client or one of their competitors. I don't know enough Watchtell folks to know about their exits, but given that they mostly work on major company life event type matters, they do likely get more exposure to the highest-level folks at a given company (rather than the rank and file in-house people who work bread and butter BD deals). That could potentially result in unique opportunities.

Yes this is absolutely true. I think there's some rough delineation between the V10 and the V50, and the V50 to the V100 but the minute you get outside of the legal department, it doesn't really matter. Even within the legal department that delineation has no real day-to-day meaning.

There's some difference in hiring - the hiring manager more or less told me while interviewing candidates (F100 tech) that they more or less view V10 hires more favorably as a V50-V100 hire at first blush when going through resumes, and they generally felt that those candidates hadthe highest initial chance of being a good candidate, but only in the initial interview stages when checking boxes for requirements. The actual legal department is a mix of V10s, V100s, V50s, career in-house lawyers, and the like, and there's no correlation between former firm and management positions.

I have not once heard someone at my company distinguish, compare, or analyze V10 firms against each other. Skadden, Latham, Kirkland, DPW, S+C, and the like are all viewed amorphously and I've not been told of an instance where a candidate selection came down to which firm they came from. I know that's really going to piss off some 3Ls and Senior Associates but I'm pretty confident that you'd get weird looks if you tried to draw those distinctions in an interview context (except for WSGR, they're actually unique).

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

Would your advice be the same for one at K&E as your response mentions V5 more than once ? Thanks !

Yes - despite its controversial nature in these forums, KE is extremely well respected in the real world. I actually came from KE and I found it very funny how well I was treated in interviews and job offers because of how much it contrasted with the rhetoric on these boards and behind closed doors at other firms.

Coming from an in-house side, I don't think firms are as differentiated as a lot of folks seem think they are. If you come from a biglaw firm they have heard of (and even better worked with), and your practice dovetails well with the role, you are likely to be taken seriously. Nobody sits around comparing whether Candidate A is better than Candidate B because the former was at Kirkland and the latter was at S&C unless they had some specific relationship with the relevant group at one or the other.

The main difference between firms is similar to the difference between sub-groups as it just impacts what experience you get and the clients you work for. It's generally going to be easier if you've already worked for the company as a client or one of their competitors. I don't know enough Watchtell folks to know about their exits, but given that they mostly work on major company life event type matters, they do likely get more exposure to the highest-level folks at a given company (rather than the rank and file in-house people who work bread and butter BD deals). That could potentially result in unique opportunities.

Yes this is absolutely true. I think there's some rough delineation between the V10 and the V50, and the V50 to the V100 but the minute you get outside of the legal department, it doesn't really matter. Even within the legal department that delineation has no real day-to-day meaning.

There's some difference in hiring - the hiring manager more or less told me while interviewing candidates (F100 tech) that they more or less view V10 hires more favorably as a V50-V100 hire at first blush when going through resumes, and they generally felt that those candidates hadthe highest initial chance of being a good candidate, but only in the initial interview stages when checking boxes for requirements. The actual legal department is a mix of V10s, V100s, V50s, career in-house lawyers, and the like, and there's no correlation between former firm and management positions.

I have not once heard someone at my company distinguish, compare, or analyze V10 firms against each other. Skadden, Latham, Kirkland, DPW, S+C, and the like are all viewed amorphously and I've not been told of an instance where a candidate selection came down to which firm they came from. I know that's really going to piss off some 3Ls and Senior Associates but I'm pretty confident that you'd get weird looks if you tried to draw those distinctions in an interview context (except for WSGR, they're actually unique).

As a WSGR associate, pls tell me you mean unique in a good way? o_o

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

Would your advice be the same for one at K&E as your response mentions V5 more than once ? Thanks !

Yes - despite its controversial nature in these forums, KE is extremely well respected in the real world. I actually came from KE and I found it very funny how well I was treated in interviews and job offers because of how much it contrasted with the rhetoric on these boards and behind closed doors at other firms.

Coming from an in-house side, I don't think firms are as differentiated as a lot of folks seem think they are. If you come from a biglaw firm they have heard of (and even better worked with), and your practice dovetails well with the role, you are likely to be taken seriously. Nobody sits around comparing whether Candidate A is better than Candidate B because the former was at Kirkland and the latter was at S&C unless they had some specific relationship with the relevant group at one or the other.

The main difference between firms is similar to the difference between sub-groups as it just impacts what experience you get and the clients you work for. It's generally going to be easier if you've already worked for the company as a client or one of their competitors. I don't know enough Watchtell folks to know about their exits, but given that they mostly work on major company life event type matters, they do likely get more exposure to the highest-level folks at a given company (rather than the rank and file in-house people who work bread and butter BD deals). That could potentially result in unique opportunities.

Yes this is absolutely true. I think there's some rough delineation between the V10 and the V50, and the V50 to the V100 but the minute you get outside of the legal department, it doesn't really matter. Even within the legal department that delineation has no real day-to-day meaning.

There's some difference in hiring - the hiring manager more or less told me while interviewing candidates (F100 tech) that they more or less view V10 hires more favorably as a V50-V100 hire at first blush when going through resumes, and they generally felt that those candidates hadthe highest initial chance of being a good candidate, but only in the initial interview stages when checking boxes for requirements. The actual legal department is a mix of V10s, V100s, V50s, career in-house lawyers, and the like, and there's no correlation between former firm and management positions.

I have not once heard someone at my company distinguish, compare, or analyze V10 firms against each other. Skadden, Latham, Kirkland, DPW, S+C, and the like are all viewed amorphously and I've not been told of an instance where a candidate selection came down to which firm they came from. I know that's really going to piss off some 3Ls and Senior Associates but I'm pretty confident that you'd get weird looks if you tried to draw those distinctions in an interview context (except for **WLRK**, they're actually unique).

As a WSGR associate, pls tell me you mean unique in a good way? o_o

I am so sorry to have done that to you, but I definitely meant WLRK (wrote that a few scotches in).