iBanking Forum

[dingbat]

OP here, and compliance/in-house is not what I meant. I merely wanted to know if there was any utility for a JD in IB (or finance in general) outside of law. I had to qualify myself with: "I would rather focus on the legal side of things, hence, going to law school" because I realized that many would jump on here and say "Don't go to law school if you want to get into IB." But, it seems that even with this qualification and my stated desire to become a lawyer over a career in finance, people still seem to think my primary reason to go to law school is to get into IB lol.

So, to be clear, in case I wasn't before: I created this post not to declare that I want to go into IB after law school...I created it to understand if there were any prospects outside of law in finance coming out with a JD, purely out of curiosity. I am going to law school to become a lawyer. I want to be a lawyer. dooood posted a response that was similar to what I was originally looking for, and thank you for that!

No no no no. Investment banking (as OP means it) ≠ in house at an IB. While plenty of people go from biglaw to in-house at IBs, this will all but kill any chance of becoming a banker. Once in-house you're essentially doing compliance and are generally looked down upon by bankers.
The route that OP is thinking of is to go from biglaw (after 2 years minimum) straight to an associate position at a bank. If you're lucky they'll start you as a second year associate, so that you're further along on the track to VP. Even if you leave biglaw as a partner though, you'll still probably start as a VP (maybe as Managing Director if you do middle market M&A).
OP, you're right to think that this is a hard jump to make, simply because lawyers lack the requisite valuation skills. As you get higher up the IB food chain, however, you get further removed from DCF/multiples and start focusing on client relationships, which is why biglaw refugees start as associates and not analysts. The best thing you can do to set yourself up for a move to IB would be to work at one of the firms in the "elite" section here: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/Editorial/36781

You seem to know much of this already, but on the business side of banking/finance, there are no real positions that require a JD. You're right only to go to law school if you plan on being a lawyer; doing otherwise would be foolish. However, people on this site tend to underestimate the weight that a JD can carry in the business world. A degree from a T14 combined plus a few years spent at an elite corporate law firm can be a great entree into many areas of finance - even those that seem far removed from the work of a corporate lawyer (e.g. mutual fund manager). Browse the bios of middle market funds and you'll see many JDs (often combined with a tax LLM).

I know several people who ended up taking that route, but not one of them intended it to begin with. Getting an LLM in tax is a major bonus.

[dooood]

OP here, and compliance/in-house is not what I meant. I merely wanted to know if there was any utility for a JD in IB (or finance in general) outside of law. I had to qualify myself with: "I would rather focus on the legal side of things, hence, going to law school" because I realized that many would jump on here and say "Don't go to law school if you want to get into IB." But, it seems that even with this qualification and my stated desire to become a lawyer over a career in finance, people still seem to think my primary reason to go to law school is to get into IB lol.

So, to be clear, in case I wasn't before: I created this post not to declare that I want to go into IB after law school...I created it to understand if there were any prospects outside of law in finance coming out with a JD, purely out of curiosity. I am going to law school to become a lawyer. I want to be a lawyer. dooood posted a response that was similar to what I was originally looking for, and thank you for that!

No no no no. Investment banking (as OP means it) ≠ in house at an IB. While plenty of people go from biglaw to in-house at IBs, this will all but kill any chance of becoming a banker. Once in-house you're essentially doing compliance and are generally looked down upon by bankers.
The route that OP is thinking of is to go from biglaw (after 2 years minimum) straight to an associate position at a bank. If you're lucky they'll start you as a second year associate, so that you're further along on the track to VP. Even if you leave biglaw as a partner though, you'll still probably start as a VP (maybe as Managing Director if you do middle market M&A).
OP, you're right to think that this is a hard jump to make, simply because lawyers lack the requisite valuation skills. As you get higher up the IB food chain, however, you get further removed from DCF/multiples and start focusing on client relationships, which is why biglaw refugees start as associates and not analysts. The best thing you can do to set yourself up for a move to IB would be to work at one of the firms in the "elite" section here: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/Editorial/36781

You seem to know much of this already, but on the business side of banking/finance, there are no real positions that require a JD. You're right only to go to law school if you plan on being a lawyer; doing otherwise would be foolish. However, people on this site tend to underestimate the weight that a JD can carry in the business world. A degree from a T14 combined plus a few years spent at an elite corporate law firm can be a great entree into many areas of finance - even those that seem far removed from the work of a corporate lawyer (e.g. mutual fund manager). Browse the bios of middle market funds and you'll see many JDs (often combined with a tax LLM).

I know several people who ended up taking that route, but not one of them intended it to begin with. Getting an LLM in tax is a major bonus.

Right. Just because many people never thought they'd end up taking that route, though, doesn't mean the OP shouldn't acquaint himself with the process if it indeed interests him. In other words, don't plan it; but if IB is your goal and you'd be happy in corporate law, even if you can't land a job at a bank you're still doing something that interests you.

As for the tax LLM comment, that was really in the context of asset management, where they are common. It obviously couldn't hurt for an IB position, but you would rarely see a banker with an LLM. Bankers often disdain people who leave banking to get an advanced degree only to return (with an MBA being the glaring exception). Even with MBAs, though, most MDs and Executive VPs at bulge brackets don't have MBAs, because they didn't want to waste two years of hustling within the bank, developing client bases, and making cash.

[TLS_noobie]

Thanks a lot for the information! Finance, in general, is something I am interested in and even though law is my goal right now I would like to acquaint myself with the other options out there. This information is certainly valuable. For me, I would like to work in corporate law with a firm for a while and then perhaps (if I feel the desire to move on and don't want to stay where I am) move onto PE or a hedge fund or something of the sort. Is this something that is possible coming from a non T14 (like a T30 for instance) given that I would already have experience in corporate law (3-5 years perhaps)? The prestige factor is a big deal I imagine and for a firm to be able to say they have a Harvard Law grad working on the client's deal would make them feel better I am sure. But is the experience at a law firm something that can overshadow that prestige value when it comes to moving into other areas of finance?

[dooood]

Thanks a lot for the information! Finance, in general, is something I am interested in and even though law is my goal right now I would like to acquaint myself with the other options out there. This information is certainly valuable. For me, I would like to work in corporate law with a firm for a while and then perhaps (if I feel the desire to move on and don't want to stay where I am) move onto PE or a hedge fund or something of the sort. Is this something that is possible coming from a non T14 (like a T30 for instance) given that I would already have experience in corporate law (3-5 years perhaps)? The prestige factor is a big deal I imagine and for a firm to be able to say they have a Harvard Law grad working on the client's deal would make them feel better I am sure. But is the experience at a law firm something that can overshadow that prestige value when it comes to moving into other areas of finance?

Yes, the caliber of your firm determines 95% of your exit options w/r/t finance. I only added the T14 bit because some banks are snooty and tend to accept applicants with Ivy-type pedigrees (Lazard comes to mind). A lot of this bias is because the higher-ups went to those types of schools, and when they were applying for jobs their higher-ups went to those places, and so on. Other banks (Stifel Nicolaus comes to mind) sometimes espouse the opposite view: kids that crushed it at lesser-ranked schools are less pampered and are likely to be more hungry.

As for PE and HF exit options....that's a bit misleading because they are not really options. PE firms hire two types of people, with almost no exceptions: (1) kids who went to work in an elite group of a bulge bracket bank straight out of college; and (2) kids graduating from a top-tier b-school who also have previous IB experience. Basically, working as an analyst or associate in an IB is a prerequisite for PE; but this is possible if you go: elite corporate law firm --> IB --> PE.

Working at an HF is even less likely, because there is zero overlap in lawyer skills and HF employee skills. HFs are looking for engineering and math majors who can understand the complex algorithms and formulae they use as trading strategies. There are very minor exceptions (e.g. a corporate bankruptcy lawyer gets recruited from an HF specializing in distressed assets), but these opportunities are rare, and you shouldn't count on finding one. Again, if you get IB experience after working in corporate law, you could be attractive to an HF - but unfortunately it would have nothing to do with your JD background.

[Napt]

Wharton MBAs are getting IB no-offer pwned ITE.

But srsly, IBs mainly recruit 22 year olds at HYP UG, so you're not helping yourself at all by dropping $200k on a JD. I suppose you can possibly get IB from HYS LS but you'd start with the same salary and job as the 22 year old from HYP UG.

Yeah, this makes sense. I feel like the economy has hit IB worse than law (but I have no experience in the legal market yet, just based on things I've heard/read).

This also answers my other question. A law school grad will come out as an analyst then? I would imagine that unless the grad has experience in IB/finance they will be at a significant disadvantage if they were to go into an associateship; so I suppose it makes sense.

Ya unless you did something prestigious before LS like IB/BB/HF/MBB/PE (which no one does coming from LS) you likely have little to no chance of ever becoming an associate tbh. Likely scenario would be law school followed by 2-3 years as analyst followed by burnout/exit/pushed out into some other finance gig. Idk why you'd want IB after LS anyway. You MIGHT be able to get it from HYS, but even then it's prob not worth it.

JDs start as associates. See, e.g., --LinkRemoved--.

Not ibanking.

[dingbat]

Thanks a lot for the information! Finance, in general, is something I am interested in and even though law is my goal right now I would like to acquaint myself with the other options out there. This information is certainly valuable. For me, I would like to work in corporate law with a firm for a while and then perhaps (if I feel the desire to move on and don't want to stay where I am) move onto PE or a hedge fund or something of the sort. Is this something that is possible coming from a non T14 (like a T30 for instance) given that I would already have experience in corporate law (3-5 years perhaps)? The prestige factor is a big deal I imagine and for a firm to be able to say they have a Harvard Law grad working on the client's deal would make them feel better I am sure. But is the experience at a law firm something that can overshadow that prestige value when it comes to moving into other areas of finance?

It really depends on what you do after law school.
If you come up with some new tax advantages structure, that can translate well for certain hedge funds or PE.
Again, your best bet is to do biglaw and make a name for yourself (and develop connections).
If that's your end goal, get a job at biglaw, work in MA, tax, or similar, and keep your eye on the prize

[Sherlock1708]

Go to a T14, get into biglaw, make sure you do transactional work for IBs for a few years, then get an in-house position with one of the IBanks you work with
It'll take 6+ years (including law school) but it is feasible

follow up question: How difficult is it for someone with little to no finance background and a liberal arts degree (english, poly sci, history, philosophy etc.) to get into corporate/MA law? Obviously this depends on the school, t14? t6? HYS?

A very good family friend is a senior partner at a top corporate law firm. He has spent the last 30 years focusing on M&A. He started at Penn in their JD/MBA program and in the end decided to pursue just the JD because his undergrad was in economics. He told me that you don't need an undergraduate background in finance or economics, but you must find these topics interesting. If you want corporate M&A, you should at least be reading the NY Times Dealbook and make sure you keep up with the latest happenings in the financial sector.