So you want to be a NY Corporate Associate? Forum

[bear patrol]

so where do all these PE M&A associates go after 2 3 years??

Would also like to know. i'm a private funds second year and feel even worse about my future now

[Pulsar]

I don't understand why you haven't quit yet. You're a "very senior" associate, so you've probably put in 7-8 years. You graduated law school between 2007-2009. The economy went to shit, but for the past few years you've probably collected huge bonuses. Your loans are paid off and you have at least $100k in the bank; hopefully several times that. You also apparently don't think you're making partner, so future benefits from the firm are low.

Needing to find another job first may not be a good reason to not quit either. People take the plunge all the time. You'll have more time to job hunt if you're not working.

At the very least somebody in this position should, upon getting a call asking them to miss their best friend's wedding, respond with something like "Sorry partner X, I'm in my best friend's wedding; he is very important to me; and I can't do it." I'm sure the partner would be shocked at the defiance, but what's he going to do about it? Fire you? Great -- now you have some severance to keep you going while you job hunt. And if you're that indispensible, are you really going to get fired anyway? I know saying yes to everything gets beaten into you over the years, but stand up for yourself more.

Also don't lie to summers. That's scummy.

[SlyFrog]

I don't understand why you haven't quit yet. You're a "very senior" associate, so you've probably put in 7-8 years. You graduated law school between 2007-2009. The economy went to shit, but for the past few years you've probably collected huge bonuses. Your loans are paid off and you have at least $100k in the bank; hopefully several times that. You also apparently don't think you're making partner, so future benefits from the firm are low.

This relates to my previous post. Quit to do what? He's too old to just go do an entry level job and start a new career somewhere. Plus there are pay cuts and there are pay cuts - sure he could probably go work on the floor of a big box retailer somewhere and make $25k a year, but presumably while he is not wedded to making what he current makes, there is probably some amount of money that he would like to make that is above say $50k a year. And those $50k-100k jobs that you can obtain with a law degree while not practicing law are harder to find than you would think.

I fit this profile, but with another 7-8 years on top of what you said (so 15+ years). I'm not trained to do anything else. Places just don't "hire" attorneys like me for non-legal jobs. I don't have the skillset they need, and frankly they assume that I will want to move on and am not worth the risk. Someone in this position is very suspect to most potential employers. Why would they hire you? And again, what exactly, with specificity, should the person go do? You have to name specific jobs they could get with their skillset - not just say things like "management role somewhere" (which I hear all the time - it is very easy to give these vague notions of other jobs someone can do, much harder to give specifics, particularly if it does not involve essentially going back to the basics and starting all over (e.g. obtaining degrees in entirely different fields), which gets harder and harder to do they further in life you are).

[PeanutsNJam]

How mobile is any career? How easy is it for a chemist 8 years in to switch to a job that has nothing to do with chemistry? I'm not sure what the expectation here is. You want a high paying job, lower work hours, fulfilling and intellectually stimulating work, all of which has nothing to do with law and must be in NYC.

I'd have recommended judgeship if not for that last bit. I honestly can't think of any job like that that doesn't require a decade of hard work and sacrifice to get there (starting a business, executive management in a company, etc.)

Again I'm failing to see how OP's exit options problem is exclusive to biglaw.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's not. People change careers all the time, and it sucks, and getting started in a new field is hard and can take months, and is going to require a big cut in pay and authority from biglaw. It may take quitting, living on savings for a while, and doing a shitload of informational interviews and volunteering. But that's what it requires. I get why someone may not want to do that and consider it better to stay in the job they hate. But it's not a problem specific to biglaw.

[Pulsar]

I feel like ragequitting, going home to southern hometown or nearby city, and just teaching high school or something would be a happier life for OP than what he is doing now.

You're right though. I don't have amazing answers. But I think it's pretty clear that OP doesn't either. And he should definitely balk at work more. Worst thing that happens is a nice severance package.

[SlyFrog]

How mobile is any career? How easy is it for a chemist 8 years in to switch to a job that has nothing to do with chemistry? I'm not sure what the expectation here is. You want a high paying job, lower work hours, fulfilling and intellectually stimulating work, all of which has nothing to do with law and must be in NYC.

I'd have recommended judgeship if not for that last bit. I honestly can't think of any job like that that doesn't require a decade of hard work and sacrifice to get there (starting a business, executive management in a company, etc.)

Again I'm failing to see how OP's exit options problem is exclusive to biglaw.

Because not nearly as many people find their jobs and excruciatingly miserable as BigLaw attorneys.

Yes, it may be difficult to exit from other jobs. (Though I think chemistry is a bad example - I would imagine there are a number of jobs you could do with a solid background in chemistry, everywhere from the Dow Chemicals of the world to research institutions, etc.) But I don't see the giant slug of chemists out there who hate their jobs so much they want to start completely over in the first place. To the extent that they do, with a STEM degree I think they have a lot more options available than a typical liberal arts undergrad/law school/BigLaw type. It is fairly uniquely law that has this gigantic number of dissatisfied people, so much so as having the previously mentioned 4x-5x alcoholism rates, depression rates, etc. And that is only what is reported in a profession that is notorious for not admitting any weakness (due to any mental maladies being seen as a career killer in a job that so prides itself on being mentally "strong").

That's the fascinating thing. OP actually has a more useful skillset than MOST Law Firm attorneys. An economics background from a top undergrad institution along with investment bank experience is light years ahead of the much greater proportion of law firm attorneys who have history/poly sci/religious studies undergraduate degrees, and effectively no quantitative/STEM skills whatsoever.

Those are the types who are well and truly fucked. If they want to go do something else, they're competing with every other 22 year old with a liberal arts degree for an entry level spot in something like PR or copywriting work.

[PeanutsNJam]

Your chemist alternatives still involve doing chemistry. A chemist can't up and become a mechanic without the same amount of effort a biglaw attorney would have to exert. Research institutions... researching chemistry.

A STEM major is not a free ticket to a 6 fig, low work hours, intellectually stimulating and fulfilling job. I would know; I and many of my friends are stem majors. A lot of people ITT seem to be incredibly deluded as to the availability of these miracle jobs, as if had you only picked up a bachelors in chemistry you could have all you've ever dreamed of.

That said, if you picked up an unemployable undergrad major, it is not the legal industry's fault that you can't transition into another career (high pay, low hours, intellectual, fulfilling). But for the legal industry, you'd be a broke Starbucks barista. If you contend that would be better than bein a biglaw attorney, I'm sure you wouldn't have trouble finding employment at a local Starbucks.

[SlyFrog]

Your chemist alternatives still involve doing chemistry. A chemist can't up and become a mechanic without the same amount of effort a biglaw attorney would have to exert. Research institutions... researching chemistry.

A STEM major is not a free ticket to a 6 fig, low work hours, intellectually stimulating and fulfilling job. I would know; I and many of my friends are stem majors. A lot of people ITT seem to be incredibly deluded as to the availability of these miracle jobs, as if had you only picked up a bachelors in chemistry you could have all you've ever dreamed of.

That said, if you picked up an unemployable undergrad major, it is not the legal industry's fault that you can't transition into another career (high pay, low hours, intellectual, fulfilling). But for the legal industry, you'd be a broke Starbucks barista. If you contend that would be better than bein a biglaw attorney, I'm sure you wouldn't have trouble finding employment at a local Starbucks.

It depends. When people want out of the law, they're not usually saying they want to go do something that is diametrically different than their basic skill (reading, writing, analysis of the same, etc.). They just want some general business position or profession that allows them to apply critical thinking skills, but without the specific nature of practicing law.

That is very different than suggesting a chemist would have to go be a mechanic. Instead, it could be the difference between research, applications, product safety review, etc. All things that involve chemistry, but very different. That does not really exist for corporate attorneys.

From what I have seen, STEM majors really are a free ticket to a mid-to-high five figure, low work hours (compared to law, investment banking, or what you would have to work in any liberal arts field to make comparable money), intellectually stimulating and fulfilling job. My friends who are "ordinary" engineers at F500 companies have very normal working hours, and at relatively young ages (e.g. early 30s) are making six figures. And they were making mid-to-high five figures pretty much right out of the gate.

And if you picked up an unemployable undergrad major, for most people, they would be finding some job somewhere that let them make $30-40k a year that they do not absolutely hate, with presumably a workable amount of student loans. Not $150-200k in student loans, getting a job starting at 25 at the earliest. There are not that many "unemployable" undergrad majors. The point is, there are a number of undergrad majors that allow you to go live a very ordinary, normal middle-class life. When you throw a law degree on that, you spend a surprising amount of time paying off the cost of that law degree working at a very miserable job. By the time you can get out, if you want to go back to the things you could have done with your basic "unemployable" undergrad degree, you are now competing with 22 year olds and trying to explain why you would want to work there when you so clearly have a better career that you could stay in.

[deant286]

How possible is it to move out of a big law position like OPs into policy or think tank work? 0l and very ignorant about what work in those fields actually entails so forgive my ignorance, but it seems like that might be kind of a natural transition, no?

[Sgtpeppernyc]

The other thing to consider is that big law has particularly bad career prospects. Firms are often "up and out" for seniors, and for many practice groups (for me litigation) there aren't a wealth of solid exit options. The unique problem of biglaw is the large number of people who are forced out at the same seniority level (or hate their jobs at a lower level) but either can't / don't want to do the same thing elsewhere.

[DanteAlighieri]

How possible is it to move out of a big law position like OPs into policy or think tank work? 0l and very ignorant about what work in those fields actually entails so forgive my ignorance, but it seems like that might be kind of a natural transition, no?

Super f*cking hard. There are tens of thousands of PhDs (not to mention masters degrees) w/o steady jobs floating around trying to get those types of gigs. These are PhDs who have spent there entire lives focusing on that one area the of research the think tank wants them for. I have known of one lawyer who did this, dude was at a v10 shop, double ivy (with language skills and focused masters degree achieved while in law school), and continued to write in real publications (like Newsweek, FP, etc.) regarding the subject matter.

The natural transition is Biglaw -> (passed over for partnership) -> Lower Vault Firm OR Midlaw OR In-house. The natural transition IS ALWAYS STAYING WITHIN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY. I really wish every 0L understood this (I did not). If you go to law school, it is not to become a consultant/ibanker/POTUS...it is to become a lawyer, if you don't want to be a practicing lawyer, that's fine but you will always be making far from from a natural move. I'm not saying you can't do it - or hating on your dreams - I am just saying its not easy and takes more luck then skill.

[jbagelboy]

How possible is it to move out of a big law position like OPs into policy or think tank work? 0l and very ignorant about what work in those fields actually entails so forgive my ignorance, but it seems like that might be kind of a natural transition, no?

In this OP's position?

Literally impossible.

[sosofla]

OP, kinda off-topic, but what do you think of the head of Cravath's M&A group heading to Paul Weiss? (I guess everyone's for sale, huh)

Also, did you ever work with/for/against on a deal? was he really as big an asshole as they say?

[jjg123]

so where do all these PE M&A associates go after 2 3 years??

Would also like to know. i'm a private funds second year and feel even worse about my future now

anyone?

[deant286]

How possible is it to move out of a big law position like OPs into policy or think tank work? 0l and very ignorant about what work in those fields actually entails so forgive my ignorance, but it seems like that might be kind of a natural transition, no?

In this OP's position?

Literally impossible.

So it's not something a median t14 grad who worked a few years in big law could reasonably expect to get? What kind of resume/school/grades do you need to have to ever hope to make the transition?

And what is it about the position this OP is in that makes it literally impossible?

[jbagelboy]

How possible is it to move out of a big law position like OPs into policy or think tank work? 0l and very ignorant about what work in those fields actually entails so forgive my ignorance, but it seems like that might be kind of a natural transition, no?

In this OP's position?

Literally impossible.

So it's not something a median t14 grad who worked a few years in big law could reasonably expect to get? What kind of resume/school/grades do you need to have to ever hope to make the transition?

And what is it about the position this OP is in that makes it literally impossible?

It's not about pedigree. OP is a corporate lawyer. He's not in policy-making or government or politics or journalism or academia or advocacy or even litigation. It's not even in the same realm of activity. No one in those fields is going to hire you.

I suppose I should allow for two tiny carveouts where someone like OP could make a small policy foothold. One is through organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, which many partners at DPW/S&C/ect are nominal members of (although only a small handful at the very top make a meaningful contribution). This would require OP to become a reputable partner at his firm.

The second way would be to literally become a James Gormon or Jamie Dimon by lateraling to a financial institution (which is a reasonable exit option) and becoming so influential that you start getting asked to craft policy. This is incredibly unlikely for a lawyer but I suppose it has happened.

[PMan99]

How possible is it to move out of a big law position like OPs into policy or think tank work? 0l and very ignorant about what work in those fields actually entails so forgive my ignorance, but it seems like that might be kind of a natural transition, no?

In this OP's position?

Literally impossible.

So it's not something a median t14 grad who worked a few years in big law could reasonably expect to get? What kind of resume/school/grades do you need to have to ever hope to make the transition?

And what is it about the position this OP is in that makes it literally impossible?

I was offered a position at one of these (albeit not one you read about in the papers every week) after doing some pro bono work for the organization. I'm not sure how median T14 would be positioned, but as with anything in law the more prestige you have the better positioned you'll be.

It was more of a connections game than anything else though. I didn't have any specific interest or ties to the sector that the group was in, but got involved though a "friend of a friend" type deal. In fact looking on their website now it's not even clear how a random person would apply to the job if they wanted to.

[DanteAlighieri]

so where do all these PE M&A associates go after 2 3 years??

Would also like to know. i'm a private funds second year and feel even worse about my future now

anyone?

PE M&A Associates usually go to smaller firms or general corporate in-house positions of which there are hundreds (not all good, well paid or easy to get). As for funds, idk, the only private funds guy I was close with went in-house to a fund as a 4th year.

I believe what OP was saying was the big time high $, exit options were much more likely to be filled by v10 associates who did more public deal work then private deal work (this is along the lines of all v10 m&a firms aren't the same and public work is seen as the higher level deal work). I do mostly private (80-20) and I would agree. I am more tentative when it comes to securities laws/work. On a private - private deal I am much more confident.

[newyorker2020]

After reading your post, it makes me think twice going to a law school. If being in a law firm is really miserable, what is life like being an in house lawyer at a company? Do they have dreadful long hours and intrusive schedule like yours? Is there big difference in salary going in house?

[1styearlateral]

After reading your post, it makes me think twice going to a law school. If being in a law firm is really miserable, what is life like being an in house lawyer at a company? Do they have dreadful long hours and intrusive schedule like yours? Is there big difference in salary going in house?

Yes and, generally, yes. Just because you're not billing by hour doesn't mean that the corporation stops working after 5.

In house positions are few and far between and are sought out by highly seasoned attorneys. It's rare to go in house right after law school, but I do have a buddy who did it. There's plenty of discussion about in house positions in this thread and others if you're interested on that perspective.

[Cynic]

Question: If making partner has very little to do with your actual legal skills, then who are the "experts" who handle legal cases? Like where does the biglaw equivalent of Floyd Abrams come from?

[Lexaholik]

It's not. People change careers all the time, and it sucks, and getting started in a new field is hard and can take months, and is going to require a big cut in pay and authority from biglaw. It may take quitting, living on savings for a while, and doing a shitload of informational interviews and volunteering. But that's what it requires. I get why someone may not want to do that and consider it better to stay in the job they hate. But it's not a problem specific to biglaw.

This. Sometimes I wish TLS was like reddit where you can upvote responses because this post should be higher than it is.

The lack of "exit options" for Biglaw lawyers is really a personality/preferences problem. Your typical Biglawyer prefers to take a minimal paycut, wants a seamless transition, and wants complete information before making a move. (Some call this risk aversion but I think it's more nuanced than that.) This is NOT how the world works.

I used to think the same way. I worked in NYC Biglaw Lit and when I looked at my standard exit options, they were all terrible. I wanted to do something different, like working for a plaintiff's firm in a different market. To pull it off, I took a massive, massive paycut (going from $210k base salary to $120k base salary) to join a firm without complete knowledge about how much bonuses would be, who I'd be working with, what work it would entail, and my future career trajectory. I had to hustle for that job--I flew out to that city and told the hiring partner "I was in town if he wanted to meet up to talk" and endured months of uncertainty about whether I'd be hired. I was rejected by many, many firms with lawyers who had nowhere near the credentials I had.

How did taking that chance turn out for me? Well, the bonuses ended up being worse than what I would have earned in Biglaw. And the job turned out to be not what I expected--I ended up leaving the firm to start my own solo practice. (I barely earn any money right now but that's a story for another day.)

So why did I do it?

If you want to have an extraordinary career earning good money and doing meaningful work, you have to leave Biglaw. There's just no way around it. The first few years (hell, even decades) during your transition will be difficult. You will see your law school peers--few of whom will take the risks you're taking--earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, make partner, become AUSAs, etc. It will feel terrible. At least in the beginning.

But if you look at the careers of the most extraordinary former Biglawyers, you'll see they all went through this. The path is messy but there are some massive rewards at the end. Some quick examples:

- Sullcrom associate for 7 months -> investment bank for 2-3 years -> starting own investment fund -> started a tech business -> dot com bubble burst -> company went public (Peter Thiel)

- Fulbright Jaworski associate for 5 years -> worked for a tiny plaintiffs firm for a year -> started his own law firm with a colleague -> worked in obscurity for a few years with little income -> won a massive jury trial -> became a famous trial lawyer (Mark Lanier) For the colorful story behind Mark Lanier's career, check out this talk he did at HLS.

- Proskauer associate for a few yeras -> another big/mid law firm for a few years -> joined an "obscure" commodities trading firm -> trading firm was acquired by big investment bank -> made his way up the company ladder (Lloyd Blankfein CEO of Goldman Sachs)

There are more of these stories but I'm too lazy to type them out. The key is that you have to find a place where you have a competitive advantage, and in all likelihood, that place is NOT Biglaw. You won't find success in a place where you hate your job. To find that place requires tons of uncertainty, unpredictable income (if any), and years of putting in work without many rewards. What do you think was going through Peter Thiel's mind as his Stanford Law Review friends were making partner while he was working for little compensation at a tech company during the dot com bust? Or what Mark Lanier was thinking when he was trying to establish his solo practice while his former colleagues were buying mansions in the suburbs and driving fancy cars?

You don't have to necessarily hit the same level of success as these guys. But I have no doubt there are hundreds, or even thousands of former Biglawyers out there who have achieved an incredible balance of work satisfaction and lifestyle by taking risks and accepting uncertainty by trying something different.

Sorry this post ended up being far longer than I expected.

[BernieTrump]

.

[BernieTrump]

.