So you want to be a NY Corporate Associate? Forum

[HowdeeTee]

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. I'm only three years out. My resume is nowhere close to OPs in terms of education, firm prestfitiginess, or work experience, but I will back everything that's been said here about corporate law. It is worse than described.

My practice is private equity buyouts and mergers and acquisitions. Our daily life can be summed up with an email I received last year. The brand new person at the sponsor had emailed the senior person at the same shop to say he wasn't going to be able to email out comments on an share purchase agreement and issues list until he got home, as he was stuck at a Friday night event. That was around 7:00 in the evening, and the junior person expressly said that he could type out the senior person's response to the lawyers' issues and look up one or two things and send by 2:00am, but he asked if it would be better to have the senior person just type out his own very minimal comments and look up one reference and send them to the lawyers, since we needed to get full revisions back to the target by the next morning. The senior person said something like "You're worrying too much about this; just send it to them whenever you get home and don't give it a second thought. They work on our schedule." It would have taken him 12 seconds to type his own comments and look up the one issue, and he was sitting at a computer, but the junior PE guy sent them at 1:50am. The partner and I stayed in the office waiting for them, and then stayed up all night turning the draft comments. The client did not realize he had forwarded the entire internal email chain when he sent those responses, but we saw it all unvarnished.

What I was most shocked by at the firm when I joined is that you think you're getting into a noble or at least somewhat respected profession, but the reality is clients doing the deals treat the lawyers as sub-human parasites, not worthy of even a passing thought. It's not usually there in black and white like it was in that email, but the sentiment comes through loud and clear from people.

[Cynic]

Would you recommend a JD/MBA combo, or is that just pointless if you won't actually practice law? What about just for signaling?

Also, as a percentage, just how rare is it to be a Merrick Garland (Obama's supreme court nominee, HLS) or a Ted Cruz, etc.?

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

Thought I would chime in- Graduated in the depths of the recession from a regional law school and heard very similar sentiments echoed by the OP. I agree with some points, but overall you can absolutely make a non-legal career move, if you have the desire and dedication. I did not go to an ivy league school or have any family contacts or connections, but found a way to break into PE and now manage my own mid-market growth equity fund.

Long story short, I took a job with a small fledgling private equity fund out of law school for minimal pay eating shit at the absolute bottom of the totem pole. I learned the business, understood the importance of deal sourcing, structuring deals and finding good, off-market proprietary investments. Anyone with exposure to middle market PE will understand what I am talking about. I did good work for the partners and became close with the family office that originally capitalized the fund. Fast forward to today, I now manage my own fund capitalized by the same family office and the founders that I started working for out of law school.

There were no short cuts or magic too it, a little luck and a vision for where I wanted my law degree to take me. My one criticism of the OP is the same mentality I see with a lot of practicing attorneys (partners twice my age asking how to break into PE), and it's a cynical attitude that it simply can't be done. It can be, you just have to bite the bullet, eat shit and dedicate yourself....

Just wanted to say thanks for this post--I have financial/personal obligations that I cannot shirk over the next year, but, next summer, I hope to start seriously attempting to break into semi-regional asset management (more interest and experience with more liquid/open-end strategies, but I hope that I have the courage to take what I can get, i.e., a much lower salary in all likelihood, if anything). It would actually be fairly easy for me in NYC to get a well-paying quasi-business/legal role, but I have zero interest in returning to the city (or CT) and would rather stay a "small town" lawyer (or telecommute) than move.

Enjoy ACK.

[Danger Zone]

Also, as a percentage, just how rare is it to be a Merrick Garland (Obama's supreme court nominee, HLS) or a Ted Cruz, etc.?

Uh about one in six billion, respectively.

[Cynic]

I meant out of HLS.

[goodoldmacintosh]

BernieTrump - have you ever considered being a professor or looking into adjunct positions? Would be surprised if you could not find a solid position with your background and salary requirements. Of course, the mandate to stay in NY complicates things a bit and your desire to get out of law does not mesh perfectly with this, but have law prof friends and it's a different world.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I meant out of HLS.

How many people have graduated from HLS? 2 out of that number.

[Danger Zone]

I meant out of HLS.

How many people have graduated from HLS? 2 out of that number.

Yeah they graduate probably 600 people a year so still a small percentage.

[Rahviveh]

BernieTrump - have you ever considered being a professor or looking into adjunct positions? Would be surprised if you could not find a solid position with your background and salary requirements. Of course, the mandate to stay in NY complicates things a bit and your desire to get out of law does not mesh perfectly with this, but have law prof friends and it's a different world.

Adjunct positions don't pay well unless you're prestigious (so corporate associated and partners don't qualify). Also adjuncts are looked down upon and get sneered at by tenured professors, and students don't respect them. What a great gig!

[banjobob]

Just wanted to add a few mitigating comments (current NYC biglaw corporate associate, years less experience than OP though...)

1. A lot has been mentioned here about people sitting at their desks, waiting for comments or phone calls to come in late into the evening. Technology has made this situation easier in the past few years and I believe will continue to do so. You can forward calls from your work number to your cell phone. You can set up an external monitor, desk, printer/scanner and keyboard at home for when work comes in. And, of course, you can reply to emails promptly from your cell phone if you are out. My experience has been that people mostly just want the work to get done, they don't say that it has to be done at any particular place (of course, they expect you to be in the office during business hours absent justification). This of course depends on firm culture, but I think as time goes on, partners are more and more comfortable with using technology, and understand that as long as the work gets done in a timely and accurate manner, it doesn't matter if you are sitting at your desk to do it.

2. Most of the experiences I have read on this thread seem to be coming from the M&A sphere. In these contexts, I do believe there is more pressure to stick around and work with your teams into the wee hours of the night. However, I have found that smaller groups at firms don't necessarily have this requirement, especially when it is a normal day and not on the eve of closing. Groups like tax, real estate, regulatory, exec comp, etc., all have generally less rigorous schedules than groups like M&A. After 7 or 8pm or so, there is somewhat of an agnostic approach towards where work is done, at least with most people. Again, you build up a track record of reliability, and people let you do what needs to be done.

3. A lot of the folks complaining, including OP, are coming from "v3" or "v10" or whatever firms. Since OP argues that exit ops aren't really affected that much by a minor decline in prestige, I would recommend working at a V20-40 or so range firm. They still pay market, there are plenty of excellent practice groups within them, and exit ops are comparable.

I cannot speak as much to the realities that come with running deals or dealing directly with clients, but I imagine that as you build these relationships and dynamics over time, you can mitigate some of this (make it known to clients and partners and juniors that you are totally reachable at night, just email or call this number instead of the work number.....or other easy fixes like that).

Never be afraid to stand up for yourself and assert yourself in a reasonable way and also communicate proactively if there is an anticipated future conflict. Otherwise, you will be seen and be treated like the bottom of the barrel, and no one will have any considerations for your time, which seems to be much of the reasons why people are complaining in this thread.

[cattleprod]

I read through the entire thread and I still don't understand why you don't just quit.

and do what? fake SS disability?

I would quit for any non-law job that had any room for advancement. I'm willing to take an 80+% paycut. Nobody will even screen you.

I was you but with only 3 years. Hated the entire legal industry. Got exited during the recession.

Got out and learned database programming. This was 7 years ago. I was making $100,000+ very soon thereafter. Now I am at $170,000+, bonus, stock grants, 4 weeks paid vacation, etc. Total compensation is getting over $200,000 annually now and just grows every year.

Tech work is very much about high quality of life. 9 am to 4:30 pm is my typical day.

There are options outside of law and the business world. Tech is the great way to $100,000+ without an advanced degree. Heck, your UG doesn't even need to be tech related.

There are plenty of opportunities for advancement of you want to go management. However the managers seem far more vulnerable to layoffs than the tech experts. My current employer just did a tech re-org. Wiped out a layer of managers, directors and a few VPs. Zero programmers fired.

My phone and email are flooded with offers trying to lure me away.

Anyone considering law should definitely redirect elsewhere. I wish I had done Computer Science from the start. That is where all of the job demand and growth is. I am now in my early 40s. I used to worry about outsourcing and age discrimination. I don't any longer. The demand for database experts is just huge and growing.

Programming apps or databases requires similar skills as law. Attention to detail and creative problem solving is important. But this stuff is easy if you are smart. But most people are too intimidated to even get started. That is why there is so much demand for those that have figured it out.

[tomwatts]

Also, as a percentage, just how rare is it to be a Merrick Garland (Obama's supreme court nominee, HLS) or a Ted Cruz, etc.?

Both of them were Supreme Court clerks, and that's about 1-2% of HLS each year, so I'd say probably 1-2%.

There is actually a serious point here. I realized — as a 3L, because I'm kind of slow sometimes — that almost everyone who came back to HLS to talk career stuff was a ridiculous outlier. About half of them were Supreme Court clerks. Nearly all of them were on HLR. Nearly all of them graduated with Latin honors, most of them magna. But 98-99% of HLS students will never be Supreme Court clerks. Over 90% of HLS is not on HLR. 60% of HLS doesn't graduate with Latin honors, and 90% of HLS doesn't graduate magna. So these people are wildly unrepresentative of HLS grads on the whole. They had all had interesting, successful, diverse careers doing cool things, but... what about the median HLS grad, who has none of those fancy qualifications (just, you know, a JD from Harvard, which I guess is pretty fancy in its own right)? I don't think I ever heard from that person.

I guess what I'm saying is that you probably shouldn't bank on being an outlier. If you're planning to go into law because you're hoping to do something that lots of people want to do but almost no one gets to do, you probably ought to have a back up plan. There are lots of interesting things in law that don't involve first becoming a Supreme Court clerk.

On the more general issue of biglaw tedium, there are definitely firms — even in NYC — that don't have the crazy facetime requirements that OP describes. Don't sign up for a workaholic firm if you don't want to be a workaholic. If you go to Boies Schiller or Wachtell or something, I don't really have a lot of sympathy when you say you're overloaded with work. The whole point of being an SA is that you get to see the inside of a firm. Dig a little while you're there to see if it's really a place you would want to work. If the answer is an emphatic no, then find other options.

[PeanutsNJam]

Also, as a percentage, just how rare is it to be a Merrick Garland (Obama's supreme court nominee, HLS) or a Ted Cruz, etc.?

Both of them were Supreme Court clerks, and that's about 1-2% of HLS each year, so I'd say probably 1-2%.

There is actually a serious point here. I realized — as a 3L, because I'm kind of slow sometimes — that almost everyone who came back to HLS to talk career stuff was a ridiculous outlier. About half of them were Supreme Court clerks. Nearly all of them were on HLR. Nearly all of them graduated with Latin honors, most of them magna. But 98-99% of HLS students will never be Supreme Court clerks. Over 90% of HLS is not on HLR. 60% of HLS doesn't graduate with Latin honors, and 90% of HLS doesn't graduate magna. So these people are wildly unrepresentative of HLS grads on the whole. They had all had interesting, successful, diverse careers doing cool things, but... what about the median HLS grad, who has none of those fancy qualifications (just, you know, a JD from Harvard, which I guess is pretty fancy in its own right)? I don't think I ever heard from that person.

I guess what I'm saying is that you probably shouldn't bank on being an outlier. If you're planning to go into law because you're hoping to do something that lots of people want to do but almost no one gets to do, you probably ought to have a back up plan. There are lots of interesting things in law that don't involve first becoming a Supreme Court clerk.

On the more general issue of biglaw tedium, there are definitely firms — even in NYC — that don't have the crazy facetime requirements that OP describes. Don't sign up for a workaholic firm if you don't want to be a workaholic. If you go to Boies Schiller or Wachtell or something, I don't really have a lot of sympathy when you say you're overloaded with work. The whole point of being an SA is that you get to see the inside of a firm. Dig a little while you're there to see if it's really a place you would want to work. If the answer is an emphatic no, then find other options.

Cynic do you honestly believe you will be smarter (read: better at law school) than 90% of your HLS classmates?

[Huluba]

Tedium and the difficulty of making partner are real negatives. Most other careers offer promotions along the way and it isn't such an all-or-nothing proposition after a decade of work.

This I feel is one of the most accurate summaries of what is wrong with the model.

[nealric]

Obviously ex ante if you want to be in consulting, business side F500, banking, etc. you should just hustle or go M7. But once you have significant experience managing junior lawyers on huge deals at an elite firm, there must be some way to spin that and a GMAT score into HBS (assuming you know you want out), right? Understandably it would suck to go back to square 1, incur debt and lose two years of earnings - but if it's that or beat your head against the wall seems like an obvious (albeit difficult) choice.

I would point out that people have similar complaints about to law for those alternatives. Consulting is just building meaningless "decks" (after taking the 3AM red eye to BFE). Banking is just excel monkey work and assembling stupid pitch books. Business side F500 just combines the banking excel monkey work with the consulting deck construction. Consulting and banking are all up or out just like law. Business a much more uncertain path towards advancement and plenty of politics.

The bottom line is that any profession has the potential to make you miserable doing too many hours of boring work. Ultimately, you have to be the author of your own happiness.

It takes a true glass half full to see it that way. Consultants have 2-3 weekends off a month. Senior bankers my age aren't working after 8-9 (I don't practice in banking/finance law, but I can say quite confidentially from my time in banking that senior VPs and MDs go home; the 100+ weeks are the analysts and associates). Every time I see friends in any other field, they ask how long before I can quit and find something else. A senior MBB consultant recently told my wife, within earshot of me, that what I do is the worst job on earth. People in senior business roles know how bad it is to be a lawyer. They feel bad for their friends (of course while treating their own lawyers like dung). I missed a friend's 30th birthday party at the Kentucky Derby a few years ago. I flew to Kentucky, had a client "emergency", and was in my hotel room during the race. I showed up at 1 in the morning at the bar while everyone else was getting ready to go home. That can only happen so many times before friends feel terrible for you and your other friends doing this.

The difference between the jobs is "doing" vs. "doing paperwork". However bad those other jobs may be on their worst day, your job as a corporate lawyer is to follow those guys around and do their paperwork. A sophisticated transaction may be very stressful for the guy trying to pull it together. At 10PM he goes home and goes to bed, while the lawyers keep working so his paperwork can be ready for his review in the morning. They just do the paperwork on what's been decided after he goes to sleep.

The senior MBB consultants and banking MDs are more equivalent to partners than senior associates. The chances of getting to that level are probably even worse than making partner in biglaw. Senior biglaw associates get put in a particular and unhappy squeeze that is somewhat unique. But it is a relatively short period in the grand scheme of your career. I think it's also true that v20 corporate NYC is probably a particularly miserable niche within biglaw. But you can always leave.

It took me a few months of pounding the pavement, but I found a very satisfying and interesting 9-6 job after 3 years of biglaw, and I'm sure my credentials pale in comparison to yours.

[zot1]

I don't really have a lot of sympathy when you say you're overloaded with work. The whole point of being an SA is that you get to see the inside of a firm. Dig a little while you're there to see if it's really a place you would want to work. If the answer is an emphatic no, then find other options.

What I get from most people is that SAs are not representative of what your life as a junior associate will be like.

[Danger Zone]

I don't really have a lot of sympathy when you say you're overloaded with work. The whole point of being an SA is that you get to see the inside of a firm. Dig a little while you're there to see if it's really a place you would want to work. If the answer is an emphatic no, then find other options.

What I get from most people is that SAs are not representative of what your life as a junior associate will be like.

Not at all. Being an SA is awesome.

[nealric]

What I was most shocked by at the firm when I joined is that you think you're getting into a noble or at least somewhat respected profession, but the reality is clients doing the deals treat the lawyers as sub-human parasites, not worthy of even a passing thought. It's not usually there in black and white like it was in that email, but the sentiment comes through loud and clear from people.

I understand that Bankers and PE guys view the world a bit differently, but I certainly don't treat our outside counsel this way.

[PMan99]

I don't really have a lot of sympathy when you say you're overloaded with work. The whole point of being an SA is that you get to see the inside of a firm. Dig a little while you're there to see if it's really a place you would want to work. If the answer is an emphatic no, then find other options.

What I get from most people is that SAs are not representative of what your life as a junior associate will be like.

Most firms go to great lengths to make the summer job a breeze. And it's hard to dig deeper - most people aren't going to complain about their job at their job, not least to an intern who's liable to babble to anyone who will listen about the negative things that were said.

Some of it also has to be experienced - a lot of things that make the job very trying are easy to rationalize as "not that bad" when you are a 0L/SA etc.

[mvp99]

I read through the entire thread and I still don't understand why you don't just quit.

and do what? fake SS disability?

I would quit for any non-law job that had any room for advancement. I'm willing to take an 80+% paycut. Nobody will even screen you.

I was you but with only 3 years. Hated the entire legal industry. Got exited during the recession.

Got out and learned database programming. This was 7 years ago. I was making $100,000+ very soon thereafter. Now I am at $170,000+, bonus, stock grants, 4 weeks paid vacation, etc. Total compensation is getting over $200,000 annually now and just grows every year.

Tech work is very much about high quality of life. 9 am to 4:30 pm is my typical day.

There are options outside of law and the business world. Tech is the great way to $100,000+ without an advanced degree. Heck, your UG doesn't even need to be tech related.

There are plenty of opportunities for advancement of you want to go management. However the managers seem far more vulnerable to layoffs than the tech experts. My current employer just did a tech re-org. Wiped out a layer of managers, directors and a few VPs. Zero programmers fired.

My phone and email are flooded with offers trying to lure me away.

Anyone considering law should definitely redirect elsewhere. I wish I had done Computer Science from the start. That is where all of the job demand and growth is. I am now in my early 40s. I used to worry about outsourcing and age discrimination. I don't any longer. The demand for database experts is just huge and growing.

Programming apps or databases requires similar skills as law. Attention to detail and creative problem solving is important. But this stuff is easy if you are smart. But most people are too intimidated to even get started. That is why there is so much demand for those that have figured it out.

congrats but your success is not typical

[speed_the_loot]

Removed.

[zot1]

The thing is that even if you're practicing x instrument for hours on end, you are still somewhat working on your product. Something that in the future you will showcase as your own, even to silent bars.

Fixing commas day in and out isn't the same. (Yes, I know there's more to law than this).

[tomwatts]

I don't really have a lot of sympathy when you say you're overloaded with work. The whole point of being an SA is that you get to see the inside of a firm. Dig a little while you're there to see if it's really a place you would want to work. If the answer is an emphatic no, then find other options.

What I get from most people is that SAs are not representative of what your life as a junior associate will be like.

Most firms go to great lengths to make the summer job a breeze. And it's hard to dig deeper - most people aren't going to complain about their job at their job, not least to an intern who's liable to babble to anyone who will listen about the negative things that were said.

Some of it also has to be experienced - a lot of things that make the job very trying are easy to rationalize as "not that bad" when you are a 0L/SA etc.

This cut of my post is sort of misleading, but even so...

Look, obviously your SA experience is not representative of a junior associate experience. But you're still in the building. You have eyes. Observe. Talk with people. Don't ask them about their grievances; ask them about their work. Show an interest. Try to figure out what they're doing and whether you would be interested in doing something similar. Try to figure out (with your own eyes) how early they come in and how late they stay, and (if you can) try to figure out whether they bring work home with them. Try emailing them when they're out of the office and see how quickly they respond (because this is what will be expected of you, too, when you're in their position). Figure stuff out. If you come out of your SA without knowing what you're getting into as a junior associate, you've basically wasted your summer.

But my main point is that you know the reputations of firms before you ever set foot in the building if you've done adequate research. Biglaw firms are not interchangeable (at least not completely). Some are much more workaholic firms — and some have much more unhealthily competitive atmospheres — than others. There are places that I would never apply because I know the culture is weird. There are places that I would never apply because there is no amount of money that you could pay me to do that work for that much time each day. And most of these places I learned about with about a month's research before OCI. So it's not that hard to figure out some basic differences among firms.

[jbagelboy]

. . . I'm talking about a theater actor, a chef at a restaurant, a screenwriter, many journalists, a folk band pianist, a neuroscientist, an AI researcher, a historian, a union organizer, a programmer, a management consultant, a policymaker in the mayor's office of a major city, a teacher, a state geologist, a personal aid to a famous magazine owner, a quantum physicist, to name a few. They all did fine in college and could have taken the LSAT or MCAT and gone to some great school but took a leap of faith to try something else. They might have roomates, they might work 9-5, they might make less money without a promise of a lot more, but they don't have debt so compensation matters a lot less, and they are excited about what they do and hopeful for the future so they are happier.

I'm not saying I don't or won't enjoy what I do, or at least some of it, but it's not the same. My excitement isn't lasting and I have a very bleak outlook on the future.

I wanted to respond to this post as part of a larger point. I'm not here to argue whether BigLaw is better or worse than all the alternatives: I don't know.

But I do think that comments like the above reflect a sort of "Facebook Effect" where all a person sees of other peoples' lives is what those people choose to present to the world. I've bolded the above categories of jobs because I'm familiar with those jobs enough to tell you that each of them has significant drawbacks, and simply focusing on their tendency to be more self-fulfilling in a higher purpose sense ignores ways in which law may in fact be better.

As a personal example, I used to be in classical music and still know several people in that world. Like you said, jbagelboy, people in that world have a strong sense of passion for their work. They love what they do; they feel alive when they do it.

But it also takes hours upon hours of work to perform at a top level. Much of this work can be mundane repetition of a few bars of music. Many orchestral instrumentalists are subjected to hundreds of bars of sitting in silence. Memorizing recitative for singers is boring as hell.

And even with intense dedication and effort, the results can be mixed. Opera singers, for instance, may simply not have the raw talent to do what they love at the professional level they desire, or they may be off-ramped to roles they do not enjoy. Plus, singers run the risk that some physiological event will ruin their voice permanently--for women particularly, because of pregnancy or menopause. Or singers may have missed important developmental benchmarks (career-wise and technique-wise) in their 20s and are stuck as a result. The level of talent across the board (and thus the level of competition among singers) is extremely high. I've spoken with singers from Eastman, Juilliard, and Indiana (somewhat analogous to HYS for law but with respect to vocal performance) who regularly sing at weddings, churches, and synagogues just to get by. And almost everyone, even people who sing at the Met or Lyric, has some sort of "boring" day job, but that day job cannot consist of an actual career because singers have to be flexible with their schedules. (Preparation and performance by an opera for a company runs in like 3 to 4-week intervals.) Many singers take teaching jobs, but music education is very shaky at most schools. When budgetary or spatial crises arise, arts teachers are the first to get the boot.

Moreover, I know many singers with no retirement to speak of (which is why the Met chorus members had such a problem with the Met's budgetary cuts, and that's the top 0.001% of singers). The front-end investment for classical music is extremely high. I asked a double-bass player how she paid for her instrument. She responded nonchalantly that her parents took out a second mortgage on their house for her to pursue her dream.

On top of all this, the arts are constantly in danger. There is no stability. And the pool of paying opportunities continues to shrink.

Again, my point isn't to point out that music is all bad, or that BigLaw is better than all the alternatives. But rather, even unicorn dream professions have substantial problems, and comparing all of BigLaw's negative aspects with all of the other professions' positive aspects only provides you with a distorted view of the world.

Mods: Alternate account because I would have broadcasted my identity with my main account.

These are all people that came to my wedding, with two exceptions for people who were invited but couldn't make it. (And this is a modestly sized wedding). Your point is well taken, but I'm not talking about facebook friends, I'm talking about honest to god friends that I'm actually in touch with and have some sense of how they really feel about what they do.

[donde]

OP, I have not posted on this forum for years but saw your post and wanted to empathize/commiserate. I am also a former top 5 UG/quant background --> top BB IBD analyst --> top law school --> now mid-level corporate associate, and agree/relate to every single thing you have posted and commend you for taking the time to verbalize what many of us are feeling.

I am actually in what might be a dream biglaw position for many people (top firm with genuinely nice people and culture, interesting corporate practice area with excellent in-house exit ops (I'm in the non-M&A side of tech transactions), great clients, remote work flexibility, 1900 billables/year max, market pay+bonus in large secondary market) and STILL feeling miserable/the need to GTFO of law. A lot of people think that they might enjoy biglaw if only ___ lifestyle/culture things were true about their firms. I would like to counter that while working fewer hours with nice people certainly helps, it in no way translates to career satisfaction if you are dissatisfied with the soul-crushing nature of legal work and the glum role of being a corporate lawyer.

IMO, I think a lot of my angst comes from the pain of knowing that I was formerly on a trajectory for a more interesting and high-flying career, but instead made some poor life decisions to go to law school and ended up where I currently am instead. This is compounded by having mostly successful college friends whose careers are now blossoming in a variety of careers and industries. I've noticed that a lot of people who are satisfied in biglaw are people from less strong undergrads or majors who feel that they have "leveled up" by going into corporate law, instead of people like us who may have had better options in the past.

Nonetheless, I'm trying to pull myself out of this rut and feel alternatively hopeful/hopeless about finding ways to transition out of law, largely by leveraging previous UG networks. OP, with an investment banking + M&A bg it seems like you could be well-suited for corporate development roles, or transitioning into software via a software bootcamp if you're open to a more drastic change (I personally know a lot of attorneys in my practice area who made the transition to software, and all of them are making 100K+ and very happy to have made the switch).

Feel free to PM me if you ever want a friendly ear to chat about this type of stuff.