Investment Banking to Law? Forum

[cluelessbanker]

Hi all,

I'm going to be an incoming investment banking analyst at a mid-tier bulge bracket bank (think BAML, Citi, Barclays). I majored in finance in college and enjoy finance, but at the same time I'm also wary of the long hours and stress involved with banking. I'm also not entirely confident in my ability to exit to industries like PE, VC, or HF, given how competitive they are. That leaves me with staying in banking for the long run, which I'm not sure I want to do.

Thus, I was contemplating working at my bank for 2 years before applying to law school, hopefully getting accepted to a T14, and ultimately working in BigLaw. My reasons for wanting to make this transition are that the legal side of deals sounds interesting to me, the improvement in my writing/reading/intellectual capabilities that comes with being a lawyer, and the main reason: the increased "prestige" of being a lawyer over a banker. I know the last bit might be seen as superficial, but as an Indian-American male who has traditional immigrant parents that fawn over the professions of being a doctor or lawyer and have no clue what investment banking is, the "prestige" of becoming a lawyer is attractive to my parents, and thus myself.

Any thoughts as to what I should do? I've heard that many more lawyers switch over to banking than vice versa, so I'm a bit hesitant about my current plan. Am I setting myself up for a rude awakening by wanting to make this transition?

As a sidenote, I graduated from a top 20 university, have a 3.9+ GPA, and plan on studying for the LSAT throughout this summer. Taking on a lot of debt to attend law school thankfully isn't a huge issue for me, as my parents have agreed to cover my tuition if I get accepted to a top law school.

Would really be grateful for any advice or hear the stories of people who have faced the same issue as me. Many thanks to all!

[QContinuum]

I'm going to be an incoming investment banking analyst at a mid-tier bulge bracket bank (think BAML, Citi, Barclays). I majored in finance in college and enjoy finance, but at the same time I'm also wary of the long hours and stress involved with banking.

It sounds like you actually enjoy your work, but are fearful that you will burn out due to long hours and stress. Let me tell you, BigLaw also involves long hours and stress, and won't be any better than what you could expect as an i-banking associate. (Yes, i-banking analyst hours are likely to be worse, but if you were to stay in i-banking you'd move up to associate soon enough.) And you know you love banking - you have no idea (nor should you have any idea - this isn't intended as a dig!) whether you'd actually enjoy BigLaw work. So IMO, there's no upside to you in trading banking for law.

the main reason: the increased "prestige" of being a lawyer over a banker. I know the last bit might be seen as superficial, but as an Indian-American male who has traditional immigrant parents that fawn over the professions of being a doctor or lawyer and have no clue what investment banking is, the "prestige" of becoming a lawyer is attractive to my parents, and thus myself.

This is a very bad reason for going to law school. Out on Main Street, lawyers certainly aren't viewed as being any more "prestigious" than bankers, and may very well be more despised than bankers. (Just think of the "crooked lawyer" trope, the sleazy slimeball who's willing to tell any lie and use any technicality to help his client avoid justice. I'm not aware of any similar "crooked banker" trope, as much as Wall Street gets bashed.)

[dabigchina]

No, just no.

No to all of this.

No.

If your parents have 400k burning a hole in their pockets, they can help u buy a house. U will get a much higher roi

Edit: no.

[cluelessbanker]

Thank you QContinuum and dabigchina! Appreciate the valuable insight; it's given me more to consider. @dabigchina, could I ask why you're so adamant against going down the law route, or are your reasons similar to that of QContinuum's?

[tinman]

I don’t think it’s so dumb to go to law school. If you come from a wealthy family, you may not have much to stress about regardless of what you choose. If your parents are willing to cover law school, you’ll be in a much better situation than those of us whose parents are poor or don’t love us so much. Sure, there are likely smarter investments than law school, but there are dumber ones too—like boats and private planes and fancy cars. If it’ll make your parents really happy to have a lawyer child, it’s their decision. If, on the other hand, they are not rich parents but simply willing to sacrifice and scrap for you, you may want to consider whether to protect them.

For what it’s worth, I got zero financial support from anyone for law school. I got need-based scholarship and loans, which I’m still paying off. I’m a senior associate now in big law. The hours are tough, but I greatly respect my coworkers—and I’ve become shaper and better in many ways. The exit opportunities in my area of law are chill and plentiful. But I like my firm so much I’ve considered no such escapes.

Another thought: there may be some interesting ways to combine your banking experience and law school.

I see little downside in talking the LSAT. You GPA is impressive. If you can rock the LSAT, you are in a much different position. For example, if you get a 165, which is a good score, you may not want to bother with law, as you clearly have other options. If you can a 175, you can probably get into Harvard and get a full scholarship to Columbia. So a lot depends on that. Take a class, study, and see how it goes. Good luck!

[QContinuum]

If it’ll make your parents really happy to have a lawyer child, it’s their decision.

OP's an adult who's graduated college and has a lucrative and desirable future in front of him as an investment banker. OP gets to decide whether he wants to ditch that in favor of becoming a lawyer. It's not OP's parents' decision. They are free to attend law school themselves if they're so hung up on the idea of having a lawyer in the family.

If, on the other hand, they are not rich parents but simply willing to sacrifice and scrap for you, you may want to consider whether to protect them.

Protect them? OP doesn't even want to go to law school himself - the only reason he's considering it is because 1) he wants to please his parents and 2) he thinks the hours may be better than banking. 2) is objectively false and 1) is an awful reason for choosing law.

If you can a 175, you can probably get into Harvard and get a full scholarship to Columbia. So a lot depends on that. Take a class, study, and see how it goes. Good luck!

But OP's happy being a banker. OP doesn't want to practice law (other than to please his parents). Of course with a 3.9+ no law school in the country is out of reach provided OP does well enough on the LSAT... but the theoretical ability to get into YSH doesn't mean OP should do it.

To the OP , You'll find this message board filled with people that hold very negative attitudes. Some of what they say is valid but take everything with a grain of salt. Based on what you said, if money isn't a problem, meaning it's not going to set your parents back too much, then go for it. I think that's the key is to really find out how much this will set your parents back. Are they going to have to borrow from there life savings or retirement? If so then you may want to reconsider....

OP himself doesn't want to go to law school. He's considering it largely to please his parents. Why are you encouraging him to prioritize his parents' desires over his own?

[dabigchina]

Thank you QContinuum and dabigchina! Appreciate the valuable insight; it's given me more to consider. @dabigchina, could I ask why you're so adamant against going down the law route, or are your reasons similar to that of QContinuum's?

He basically nailed it. Pleasing your parents (who, no offense, don't seem that sophisticated) is a terrible reason to be a lawyer.

[LSATWiz.com]

It may be nice to have some kind of credential component attached to all posts by username (though verification would be a nightmare). This way people can see the law related experience of posters to know how much weight to accord them when making major life decisions without the need for others to mention them, which would prevent feelings that one is being personally attacked and setting off all these back-and-forths.

On the pleasing your parents front, if you are not successful and happy practicing law, will your parents really be happier than if you were successful in something that made you happy? A lot of times parents have ideas of what they want for their children, but often these ideas are not based on an accurate perception of reality, and the end result would ultimately make them less happy.

[Excellent117]

Please do not go to law school. You will waste three years not earning anything or gaining any relevant experience, only to (potentially) end up in a position where the hours are almost as bad and you're working on the absolute least interesting aspects of finance. And that's assuming you are even able to land a position in biglaw in the first place. You could just as easily end up completely shut out of that level of the industry.

As others have suggested, convince your parents to contribute that money to a down payment fund or trust instead. You'll be much better off for it.

[Betharl]

I'm a mid-level M&A/PE associate at a top firm. I'd really like to hear what you think would be interesting about working on the legal side of M&A deals (I could use a good laugh). It depends on your perspective, but a lot of people would say the business people work out most of the important terms and things that matter and the lawyers just paper the transaction and squabble about things that don't (or likely won't) matter. You also have to consider, to the extent lawyers do anything interesting on M&A deals, the seniority of the lawyer. The more senior the lawyer, the more likely they'll engage in high-level strategy discussions, etc. For the most part though, the job is sitting in your office and quietly reviewing and revising or drafting legal documents all day, which I don't find to be THAT objectionable, but it's about as interesting as it sounds. Actually, you probably only get to do more of that type of work after the first year or two. When you first start you'll basically be a high-level personal assistant, do due diligence, chase down random questions and do other various tedious, detail-oriented assignments (e.g., "form check" a SEC filing which will require you to look through 200 rules and see if the filing some mid-level/senior drafted complies with those rules, and by the way, each of those rules will cross reference two other rules which you then have to go look up (e.g, "Rule xyz, furnish the information required by regs S-K xyz and zyx")).

I suppose there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind, even taking the LSAT, but I'd try to get more of a sense of whether you like working in I-banking. There would be a huge financial hit/opportunity cost to you to make the switch, so if you did want to switch, I think you'd want to be pretty sure you really want to be an M&A lawyer/would really enjoy the work more than banking/the business side, and I am highly skeptical of that.

[dabigchina]

I'm a mid-level M&A/PE associate at a top firm. I'd really like to hear what you think would be interesting about working on the legal side of M&A deals (I could use a good laugh). It depends on your perspective, but a lot of people would say the business people work out most of the important terms and things that matter and the lawyers just paper the transaction and squabble about things that don't (or likely won't) matter. You also have to consider, to the extent lawyers do anything interesting on M&A deals, the seniority of the lawyer. The more senior the lawyer, the more likely they'll engage in high-level strategy discussions, etc. For the most part though, the job is sitting in your office and quietly reviewing and revising or drafting legal documents all day, which I don't find to be THAT objectionable, but it's about as interesting as it sounds. Actually, you probably only get to do more of that type of work after the first year or two. When you first start you'll basically be a high-level personal assistant, do due diligence, chase down random questions and do other various tedious, detail-oriented assignments (e.g., "form check" a SEC filing which will require you to look through 200 rules and see if the filing some mid-level/senior drafted complies with those rules, and by the way, each of those rules will cross reference two other rules which you then have to go look up (e.g, "Rule xyz, furnish the information required by regs S-K xyz and zyx")).

I suppose there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind, even taking the LSAT, but I'd try to get more of a sense of whether you like working in I-banking. There would be a huge financial hit/opportunity cost to you to make the switch, so if you did want to switch, I think you'd want to be pretty sure you really want to be an M&A lawyer/would really enjoy the work more than banking/the business side, and I am highly skeptical of that.

All of this. OP thinks being a transactional lawyer is like being an MD, when it's actually being the banker's bitch.

Being a specialist is like being the banker's bitch's bitch.

[cluelessbanker]

Hi all,

Thank you everyone for your feedback and thoughts on this matter. It's hard to communicate this through a message on the internet, but I read every single comment and I really do appreciate the insights that everyone has to offer, no matter how small or big. Everyone else that I've asked in person, whether it be college friends or alumni currently in law school, simply didn't know enough about both IB and law to give me an informed answer, so I really find the information on this website valuable.

I've decided that I'm going to have a sit-down with my parents to fully flesh out the issue at hand and see what their thoughts are. I'll be sure to incorporate the things that several people have mentioned here to give them a more realistic idea of how the transition process to law school from banking would actually turn out. I'll keep you guys updated on what path I ultimately decide to go down on.

As for any people who read this thread in the future, feel free to message me if you want any advice for breaking into IB (I know it's not related to law, but I figured that it'd be a small way of giving back to this community for any students currently in law school or lawyers who want to transition into IB).

Thanks again everyone!

[dabigchina]

\
I've decided that I'm going to have a sit-down with my parents to fully flesh out the issue at hand and see what their thoughts are. I'll be sure to incorporate the things that several people have mentioned here to give them a more realistic idea of how the transition process to law school from banking would actually turn out. I'll keep you guys updated on what path I ultimately decide to go down on.

Are your parents pushing you hard to go to law school? It honestly doesn't sound like they really care, but you think they care/want to make them proud? If that is the case, then I wouldn't even bring it up.

Speaking as a child of an immigrant, if they are pushing you hard, you aren't going to change their mind. If your parents are anything like mine, they absolutely hate to be told by their children how the world works and will invariably dig in their heels and stop listening.

[Yulilo]

Hi all,

I'm going to be an incoming investment banking analyst at a mid-tier bulge bracket bank (think BAML, Citi, Barclays). I majored in finance in college and enjoy finance, but at the same time I'm also wary of the long hours and stress involved with banking. I'm also not entirely confident in my ability to exit to industries like PE, VC, or HF, given how competitive they are. That leaves me with staying in banking for the long run, which I'm not sure I want to do.

Thus, I was contemplating working at my bank for 2 years before applying to law school, hopefully getting accepted to a T14, and ultimately working in BigLaw. My reasons for wanting to make this transition are that the legal side of deals sounds interesting to me, the improvement in my writing/reading/intellectual capabilities that comes with being a lawyer, and the main reason: the increased "prestige" of being a lawyer over a banker. I know the last bit might be seen as superficial, but as an Indian-American male who has traditional immigrant parents that fawn over the professions of being a doctor or lawyer and have no clue what investment banking is, the "prestige" of becoming a lawyer is attractive to my parents, and thus myself.

Any thoughts as to what I should do? I've heard that many more lawyers switch over to banking than vice versa, so I'm a bit hesitant about my current plan. Am I setting myself up for a rude awakening by wanting to make this transition?

As a sidenote, I graduated from a top 20 university, have a 3.9+ GPA, and plan on studying for the LSAT throughout this summer. Taking on a lot of debt to attend law school thankfully isn't a huge issue for me, as my parents have agreed to cover my tuition if I get accepted to a top law school.

Would really be grateful for any advice or hear the stories of people who have faced the same issue as me. Many thanks to all!

I know someone who made the switch from a lower BB IB to Columbia Law. He's a mid level at a V5 now and actually enjoys law more than banking. The choice should really come down to what you're good at and where you eventually want to end up. The aforementioned person hated the "sales" aspect of banking and preferred digging into the weeds on the models and the docs. He also hated the crass commercial pressures of investment banking, and wanted to be in a role where he could actually be a true strategic advisor to his clients. Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

What does this mean for you? First, you need to think about whether your interest in law is genuine or motivated primarily by your parents/fear of not being able to exit to PE/HF. To determine whether you would like being a corporate attorney, I recommend reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AXTFKKC/re ... TF8&btkr=1

It's written by a Cravath alum and it does a great job of breaking down the docs and what an M&A attorney actually does.

Second, you should weigh the pros and cons of each profession and determine which one sounds more appealing to you. I do think banking--> law is a defensible move, but you have to make sure you're doing it for the right reasons. The reason why so many corporate law associates want to move to banking is because they didn't seriously consider this question before going to law school. I will say that choosing law over banking because of "prestige" is misguided. Working at a top law firm is just as prestigious as working at a top bank, but the nature of the work is quite different. Your job is to determine which you would enjoy more.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

[Necho2]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

Haha I'm loving metaphor, even the compensation ratios probably being roughly accurate (avg. probably 3-5x higher comp, larger at the top-end). Except the NBA has guaranteed salaries and NFL doesn't, and I think I-banking has a much more contingent (but higher) comp style relative to BigLaw, especially lockstep firms...

[Yulilo]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

His point was not that it’s intrinsically easier to make partner in BigLaw compared to making MD at a bank. Both are equally difficult. His point was that, for him at least, the prospects of making MD were much bleaker because he didn’t see himself ever becoming a master salesman.

[dabigchina]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

His point was not that it’s intrinsically easier to make partner in BigLaw compared to making MD at a bank. Both are equally difficult. His point was that, for him at least, the prospects of making MD were much bleaker because he didn’t see himself ever becoming a master salesman.

If he doesn't think being a biglaw partner requires masterful sales skills, i'd say he doesn't know as much about biglaw as he lets on.

[Yulilo]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

His point was not that it’s intrinsically easier to make partner in BigLaw compared to making MD at a bank. Both are equally difficult. His point was that, for him at least, the prospects of making MD were much bleaker because he didn’t see himself ever becoming a master salesman.

If he doesn't think being a biglaw partner requires masterful sales skills, i'd say he doesn't know as much about biglaw as he lets on.

He’s more than qualified to pass judgement, but your point is taken. I’d say the distinction is that selling clients on deals is the job of a banking MD. BigLaw Partners still make their money from lawyering, even though selling the firm’s services to clients is an extremely important part of the job.

[TheatreofDreams]

Inversely...what are the possibilities of a Debt Capital Markets lawyer moving an IB's DCM team?

I'm pretty sure this is a move that happens here and there. Does anyone have experience here or could shed some light on what would be required? Series # tests? Also, what if it doesn't work out, could one theoretically still move back into law?

[ghostoftraynor]

OP, I think you are in a great spot. You are already "contemplating working at [your] bank for 2 years before applying to law school." In that time, you will get a much better idea of what banking is like and you can also start talking to lawyers and getting a better picture of what the law is like. Agree with the majority that it probably doesn't make sense to switch, but you have two years to gather information to make a decision on what is best for you.

Also reiterate what others said that you should more or less leave your parents out of it. Your career is what you will spend a majority of your entire waking life on. Don't spend that time doing something that makes you miserable.

[nealric]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

His point was not that it’s intrinsically easier to make partner in BigLaw compared to making MD at a bank. Both are equally difficult. His point was that, for him at least, the prospects of making MD were much bleaker because he didn’t see himself ever becoming a master salesman.

If he doesn't think being a biglaw partner requires masterful sales skills, i'd say he doesn't know as much about biglaw as he lets on.

I wouldn't say making partner necessarily requires "masterful sales skills." I've definitely met and worked with a lot of biglaw partners who are horrible salespeople. As they say, there are minders, finders, and grinders. It's pretty rare for a pure grinder to make partner, but there are certainly "minder" types who aren't great at sales but bring some strong technical expertise- especially in niche practices. To be sure, salesmanship is helpful to your career in just about any profession.

[LSATWiz.com]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

His point was not that it’s intrinsically easier to make partner in BigLaw compared to making MD at a bank. Both are equally difficult. His point was that, for him at least, the prospects of making MD were much bleaker because he didn’t see himself ever becoming a master salesman.

If he doesn't think being a biglaw partner requires masterful sales skills, i'd say he doesn't know as much about biglaw as he lets on.

I wouldn't say making partner necessarily requires "masterful sales skills." I've definitely met and worked with a lot of biglaw partners who are horrible salespeople. As they say, there are minders, finders, and grinders. It's pretty rare for a pure grinder to make partner, but there are certainly "minder" types who aren't great at sales but bring some strong technical expertise- especially in niche practices. To be sure, salesmanship is helpful to your career in just about any profession.

I'm not sure it would be possible to judge without seeing them at a pitch meeting or at least observing them with their superiors. To a certain extent, I'd imagine you were more trying to sell yourself to them during your encounters than vice versa.

[nealric]

Moreover, he's gunning for partner and is confident that he has a much better shot at making it in law versus making MD at an IBank.

If even true, this is like how it’s easier to get on a roster in the NFL than in the NBA

His point was not that it’s intrinsically easier to make partner in BigLaw compared to making MD at a bank. Both are equally difficult. His point was that, for him at least, the prospects of making MD were much bleaker because he didn’t see himself ever becoming a master salesman.

If he doesn't think being a biglaw partner requires masterful sales skills, i'd say he doesn't know as much about biglaw as he lets on.

I wouldn't say making partner necessarily requires "masterful sales skills." I've definitely met and worked with a lot of biglaw partners who are horrible salespeople. As they say, there are minders, finders, and grinders. It's pretty rare for a pure grinder to make partner, but there are certainly "minder" types who aren't great at sales but bring some strong technical expertise- especially in niche practices. To be sure, salesmanship is helpful to your career in just about any profession.

I'm not sure it would be possible to judge without seeing them at a pitch meeting or at least observing them with their superiors. To a certain extent, I'd imagine you were more trying to sell yourself to them during your encounters than vice versa.

I'm in-house, so I'm pitched relatively often. I also attended a few pitches as an associate. I've seen salesmanship ranging from excellent to atrocious on both sides of the pitch. Keep in mind I'm also in tax, where the ratio of service partners to rainmakers is much more skewed towards service than other practice groups.

[cluelessbanker]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for the continued feedback and advice. I've talked to my parents, and while things still didn't go exactly one way or the other, I think it helped them understand where I was coming from and be a tad bit more open to pursuing finance.

Sorry I'm still unfamiliar with how to properly respond to individual people's messages, so here's my attempt to respond to individual questions.
@TheatreofDreams: I would say it's probably difficult. From what I've seen and through my own experiences, investment banking recruiting typically happens at a handful (maybe top 20 or 25) universities, and the recruiting cycle is pretty competitive and fast-paced. That means that finding an investment banking job once you've already graduated from undergrad and can no longer participate in this standard path for recruiting for IB jobs is going to require a lot of networking, relevant job experience, studying, and luck. Not many boutique or middle market investment banks offer DCM teams, so that means a lawyer would have to go straight from his law job to the DCM team at a large bulge bracket or similar bank (like Wells Fargo, RBC, etc) which would be very difficult. I think the best way of going from a law job to an IB job is to go get an MBA from a top school (which would take time and money) and intern at a BB firm as a summer associate before getting a full time offer. Studying for the Series exam is definitely a part of the job, but that typically happens only once you've received an offer; getting an offer is the difficult part in the first place.

@ the person who sent me a PM, I don't know how to respond to a PM so I'll reply here. Sorry. Anyways, my answer to your question is actually quite similar to the question that TheatreofDreams asked, so my response to him/her applies to your question as well. Additionally, I haven't started just yet as a banker, so unfortunately I don't have any experiences working with a tax lawyer. Making the move to banking requires a lot of studying, including learning the fundamentals, of finance, accounting, and valuation. It also requires the ability to handle stress and work long hours. If you're a lawyer and want to make the move into banking, I'd try to get a good MBA and try to intern at a boutique investment bank to see if banking is really for you. Also, try reaching out to any school alumni on LinkedIn who have either made the transition or work in banking; they might be able to help you break in.