Most lucrative path starting in corporate at a v10 Forum

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

[Anonymous User]

do sophisticated credit / RX work in BL → get investing seat at large, brand-name distressed/vulture fund (either directly or by way of "desk lawyer") → ??? → profit

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

[k_moreno]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

The guy over here <viewtopic.php?f=23&t=310474> pretty much said the answer is make partner:

These elite BigLaw partners make more over the life of their careers than most CEO’s, fund PM’s, traders, etc.. They can reliably expect $3-10 million a year until retirement, at which point they get the pension. Sure some of our guys may have a good year but there’s virtually nowhere else you can reliably expect millions year after year.

Obviously if you can start a successful fund or your own business you have a shot at making more, but v10 equity partner is tough to beat.

[Anonymous User]

This is kind of a dumb question that is asked a lot here. The short answer is that it depends on your risk tolerance.

A top performing finance executive, be at someone at a hedge fund or a senior banker, will be paid much better than virtually all v10 partners. On the other hand, the risk of not making partner if you truly are willing to grind is significantly lower then the risk associated with not becoming a top investment professional or banker (those guys are judged much more on true merit and are much more likely to get shitcanned along the way). Granted, neither of these risks is trivial, Not everyone can make partner, but I think in the grand scheme of things, it’s a lot easier to plan on making partner somewhere) even if it’s not the v10 you start at) that is to plan on being a top finance guy.

But planning on being either is not a good way to organize your life because the odds are stacked against you either way and it is a miserable existence.

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

Also curious if M&A (PE or Public) is really only good for generalist exits which probably won't pay the most. Or is it as good as elite credit work re potential finance exits?

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

Leave M&A.. it's a joke (though it would be nice if you could obtain some experience in shareholder activism advisory or high-level corporate governance - shareholder advisory IB roles are considered quite sexy and in plenty of cases are positioned by ex-lawyers). Anyway, as an ex-lawyer in a potential finance role, you'd be better positioned if you have some substantial experience in restrcuturing (Kirkland, Weil etc. are considered top-notch in the RX field) or lev. finance/credit (ditto with respect to DPW, STB or CSM)...If you gain a couple of years of experience in these fields, you could easily lateral into an IB role (with the right networking)

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

Group most conducive to lateraling into finance is restructuring followed by leveraged finance for LevFin banking. M&A is not actually good for going into banking because you do two totally different things. Bankers do sell-side pitches and massage numbers on CIMs to justify the buyer paying 26x EBITDA. Lawyers squabble over purchase price adjustments and random BS on the purchase agreement to ensure the client is getting what they're paying for. Just two totally different skill sets with two different goals in mind. At least in restructuring you can get access to a credit doc and understand in theory how a waterfall should work and what needs to get done in the process. Funds is certainly useless, how will churning LPAs and PPMs help you do any kind of "high finance".

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

Group most conducive to lateraling into finance is restructuring followed by leveraged finance for LevFin banking. M&A is not actually good for going into banking because you do two totally different things. Bankers do sell-side pitches and massage numbers on CIMs to justify the buyer paying 26x EBITDA. Lawyers squabble over purchase price adjustments and random BS on the purchase agreement to ensure the client is getting what they're paying for. Just two totally different skill sets with two different goals in mind. At least in restructuring you can get access to a credit doc and understand in theory how a waterfall should work and what needs to get done in the process. Funds is certainly useless, how will churning LPAs and PPMs help you do any kind of "high finance".

Two follow ups:

1. So is the M&A hype surrounding the unicorn GC exit that pays insane? Why then is M&A so lauded for exits (unless it's just for people who wan to put in a couple years and get out...)?

2. Does the funds skillset translate to profitable positions are funds tho?

[Anonymous User]

- Starting at a v10 in corporate (non-NYC market)
- If my only interest is making money should I be gunning for partnership, exiting to finance, etc.
- Current thought is to start M&A to keep doors (or maybe funds) and just see what happens
- Don't really care about work life balance but long term career prospects
- Might also be worth noting I also have an MBA

I'm assuming your MBA is not from a top school because if making money is your only interest, you would be pursuing banking instead.

Correct, yeah non-target MBA.

Which group is most conducive to a lateral into finance if one wanted to take that risk? M&A is thrown around a lot, but during my summer ppl kept saying funds actually has profitable exits (assuming KE/STB/Deb), and very curious about the poster saying to go with credit.

And are those exits finance exits limited to NYC - not sure the high cost of living makes that worthwhile in the long run...

Group most conducive to lateraling into finance is restructuring followed by leveraged finance for LevFin banking. M&A is not actually good for going into banking because you do two totally different things. Bankers do sell-side pitches and massage numbers on CIMs to justify the buyer paying 26x EBITDA. Lawyers squabble over purchase price adjustments and random BS on the purchase agreement to ensure the client is getting what they're paying for. Just two totally different skill sets with two different goals in mind. At least in restructuring you can get access to a credit doc and understand in theory how a waterfall should work and what needs to get done in the process. Funds is certainly useless, how will churning LPAs and PPMs help you do any kind of "high finance".

Two follow ups:

1. So is the M&A hype surrounding the unicorn GC exit that pays insane? Why then is M&A so lauded for exits (unless it's just for people who wan to put in a couple years and get out...)?

2. Does the funds skillset translate to profitable positions are funds tho?

You sound like someone who only cares about money and doesn't have any interest or industry knowledge about the law, finance or business. You will not find success either at a firm or in high finance. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because I think you'll realize there's a lot more to life than making money. M&A is lauded for its exits because it's essentially a generalist corporate role that allows you to see a wide variety of legal problems from IP contracts to employment agreements to purchase agreements to proxy contests. You get Act '33 and '34 exposure and although all of the aforementioned is farmed out to speciality groups you still get to touch it. As a GC/in house you need to have a diverse skillset and M&A gives you exposure to those skills alongside strong project management/corporate governance/communication skills.

Funds work may translate into in house positions at some of the funds you service, but you won't even be a desk lawyer. You'll be a cost center for the firm and you certainly won't get carry unless you rise to GC.

Stop worrying about making the most money and worry about learning the industry and how to excel at whatever you do. If you have to ask these rudimentary questions there's no shot you'll succeeding in either the finance or legal industry.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of juniors don’t even bother to think about this stuff long term re groups, so I think it’s hardly rudimentary. But point well taken that you have to care about what your doing (I assume that comes as you commit to the work).

Question more is, in a vacuum, what group catalyzes you onto a trajectory for the most money. Finance is the obvious choice but is quite amorphous.

[Anonymous User]

Making partners/mds at bank/funds is a long shot, you shouldnt pick your group based on that. If your goal is to maximize expected earnings, just do m&a which gives the widest exit options. There are decent paying in house jobs out there that you can get. And if you really need to break into finance side of things, Ive seen m&a lawyers make the jump so that option is still there.

[Anonymous User]

Making partners/mds at bank/funds is a long shot, you shouldnt pick your group based on that. If your goal is to maximize expected earnings, just do m&a which gives the widest exit options. There are decent paying in house jobs out there that you can get. And if you really need to break into finance side of things, Ive seen m&a lawyers make the jump so that option is still there.

Appreciate the insight. How important is it for an associate to gain additional marketable skills if they want to make that transition. I.e. if your a top tier M&A associate do you need to also show you can handle the technical side of finance or is that not what you’d be doing for them at that point anyway?

[Anonymous User]

Making partners/mds at bank/funds is a long shot, you shouldnt pick your group based on that. If your goal is to maximize expected earnings, just do m&a which gives the widest exit options. There are decent paying in house jobs out there that you can get. And if you really need to break into finance side of things, Ive seen m&a lawyers make the jump so that option is still there.

Appreciate the insight. How important is it for an associate to gain additional marketable skills if they want to make that transition. I.e. if your a top tier M&A associate do you need to also show you can handle the technical side of finance or is that not what you’d be doing for them at that point anyway?

On the biz level you need to know the technicals and at a more refined level than an MBA would provide - how is [x] going to hit the income statement, how does [y] affect cash flows q by q, if you assume [z] how will [aa] affect ROI assuming an exit at [bb], etc.

Have fun being a V10 M&A associate and learning 2-3 years of college accounting and finance on the side so that you can attempt to unicorn your way into a biz-side finance position. The guys I know who did this were all restructuring and credit lawyers who either (a) were just plenty fucking smart and learned the finance by osmosis (most people can't do it and I wouldn't bet on your being able to do so) or (b) knew the accounting and finance pre-LS and were able to fuse the legal and pre-LS skills together for a successful exit.

The legendary GC opportunities are being some star senior associate/random junior partner at a tech/renewables-focused shop where you work closely with the biz guys at a unicorn start-up/VC investment, they poach you to be the GC and then that entity IPOs. At any given time, there are 100s/1000s of businesses like this across the country and 100s (if not 1000s) of lawyers trying to do the exact same thing - I have a buddy from LS who has been AGC at like 3-4 of these companies now shopping for one of these roles and it hasn't happened, and he's been in-house for 7 years. So the math isn't really on your side because you've got to pick the entity that IPOs, you've got in a position to be advising it, and you have to get in while the equity opportunity is there, and it's not 2002 anymore.

You need to understand that while V10 is pretty elite in the grand scope of things, there are a ton of V10 lawyers, this situation is basically law school all over again - you're on a brutal curve against a bunch of other people who you're roughly median against, except this time the candidate pool is way more competitive because these are the people who made the cut to get offers and then self-selected into this shit, so trying to position yourself for some goldilocks scenario 5-6 years out isn't realistic and isn't a smart way of planning.

Pick the practice group that you believe will provide you an acceptable exit and that will give you bearable work, and go from there.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you, this is extremely helpful!

[Anonymous User]

Making partners/mds at bank/funds is a long shot, you shouldnt pick your group based on that. If your goal is to maximize expected earnings, just do m&a which gives the widest exit options. There are decent paying in house jobs out there that you can get. And if you really need to break into finance side of things, Ive seen m&a lawyers make the jump so that option is still there.

Appreciate the insight. How important is it for an associate to gain additional marketable skills if they want to make that transition. I.e. if your a top tier M&A associate do you need to also show you can handle the technical side of finance or is that not what you’d be doing for them at that point anyway?

On the biz level you need to know the technicals and at a more refined level than an MBA would provide - how is [x] going to hit the income statement, how does [y] affect cash flows q by q, if you assume [z] how will [aa] affect ROI assuming an exit at [bb], etc.

Have fun being a V10 M&A associate and learning 2-3 years of college accounting and finance on the side so that you can attempt to unicorn your way into a biz-side finance position. The guys I know who did this were all restructuring and credit lawyers who either (a) were just plenty fucking smart and learned the finance by osmosis (most people can't do it and I wouldn't bet on your being able to do so) or (b) knew the accounting and finance pre-LS and were able to fuse the legal and pre-LS skills together for a successful exit.

The legendary GC opportunities are being some star senior associate/random junior partner at a tech/renewables-focused shop where you work closely with the biz guys at a unicorn start-up/VC investment, they poach you to be the GC and then that entity IPOs. At any given time, there are 100s/1000s of businesses like this across the country and 100s (if not 1000s) of lawyers trying to do the exact same thing - I have a buddy from LS who has been AGC at like 3-4 of these companies now shopping for one of these roles and it hasn't happened, and he's been in-house for 7 years. So the math isn't really on your side because you've got to pick the entity that IPOs, you've got in a position to be advising it, and you have to get in while the equity opportunity is there, and it's not 2002 anymore.

You need to understand that while V10 is pretty elite in the grand scope of things, there are a ton of V10 lawyers, this situation is basically law school all over again - you're on a brutal curve against a bunch of other people who you're roughly median against, except this time the candidate pool is way more competitive because these are the people who made the cut to get offers and then self-selected into this shit, so trying to position yourself for some goldilocks scenario 5-6 years out isn't realistic and isn't a smart way of planning.

Pick the practice group that you believe will provide you an acceptable exit and that will give you bearable work, and go from there.

Op quoted, i think you probably dont mean this, but i wouldnt pick finance/credit/resturcuting practice over m&a just cuz it gives a “better” shot at making the jump to biz (not sure if that is even true and even if true we are probably talking about improving odds from 5% to 10% so unlikely either way). Finance/restructuring exits can be very limited hence you see posts discussing exits from these practice groups regularly on thhs forum.

[Anonymous User]

Funds work may translate into in house positions at some of the funds you service, but you won't even be a desk lawyer. You'll be a cost center for the firm and you certainly won't get carry unless you rise to GC.

As a funds lawyer this is laughably wrong. If you’re planning on continuing to do legal work, in house funds is relatively very lucrative and it’s not difficult to find a position.

Your value from practicing funds in biglaw is less about knowing the speciality legal docs and more about knowledge of fund ops.

[Anonymous User]

How hard is it to get a funds exit more on biz side of the fund and say with carry? Or are funds exits generally lucrative but most always limited to the same type of legal work?

[Anonymous User]

How hard is it to get a funds exit more on biz side of the fund and say with carry? Or are funds exits generally lucrative but most always limited to the same type of legal work?

It's definitely limited to legal work for operating the fund. You have even less useful knowledge than M&A lawyers in terms of the investing side. Just because you know how to a structure a fund does not mean you know ANYTHING about investing or the levers for a successful investment.

[Anonymous User]

How hard is it to get a funds exit more on biz side of the fund and say with carry? Or are funds exits generally lucrative but most always limited to the same type of legal work?

It's definitely limited to legal work for operating the fund. You have even less useful knowledge than M&A lawyers in terms of the investing side. Just because you know how to a structure a fund does not mean you know ANYTHING about investing or the levers for a successful investment.

How bad is that in terms of long term comp?

[Anonymous User]

Anyway, as an ex-lawyer in a potential finance role, you'd be better positioned if you have some substantial experience in restrcuturing (Kirkland, Weil etc. are considered top-notch in the RX field) or lev. finance/credit (ditto with respect to DPW, STB or CSM)...If you gain a couple of years of experience in these fields, you could easily lateral into an IB role (with the right networking)

Anyone know where Wachtell's ReFi group fits among these other firms? Is it top-notch, and if so, in what?

[Anonymous User]

Anyway, as an ex-lawyer in a potential finance role, you'd be better positioned if you have some substantial experience in restrcuturing (Kirkland, Weil etc. are considered top-notch in the RX field) or lev. finance/credit (ditto with respect to DPW, STB or CSM)...If you gain a couple of years of experience in these fields, you could easily lateral into an IB role (with the right networking)

Anyone know where Wachtell's ReFi group fits among these other firms? Is it top-notch, and if so, in what?

I would imagine (it's Wachtell lol)

To the above poster, when should one start that networking (as a 3L) or just feel out practice for a while?

[Anonymous User]

Anyway, as an ex-lawyer in a potential finance role, you'd be better positioned if you have some substantial experience in restrcuturing (Kirkland, Weil etc. are considered top-notch in the RX field) or lev. finance/credit (ditto with respect to DPW, STB or CSM)...If you gain a couple of years of experience in these fields, you could easily lateral into an IB role (with the right networking)

Anyone know where Wachtell's ReFi group fits among these other firms? Is it top-notch, and if so, in what?

I would imagine (it's Wachtell lol)

To the above poster, when should one start that networking (as a 3L) or just feel out practice for a while?

Wachtell's credit/finance practice is actually ok (I'd say a tier below that of Cravath or STB, for example), but then again, it's Wachtell so the name itself will do the work.....

As for the networking, I suppose it'd be easier to lateral into IB once you have some experience as a lawyer. People in this forum really underestimate this career path and how common it actually is for lawyers. And no, you don't have to graduate with high honors from HYS to make this move. Decent grades from a T14 (and beyond) can land you a gig, to the extent you can network properly (btw, even as an MBA you'd have to network to land an IB associate position (not that it is that hard)) and actually display a minimal understanding of the field.

[Anonymous User]

bump