Law vs. Investment Banking?
Hi
I am trying to decide between going to law school or pursue investment banking. I am good at math, but also love doing persuasive argumentation. Any advice?
Should I Become an Investment Banker or Lawyer?
Deciding to pursue a law degree can be a major investment and pursuing investment banking is a serious time commitment so you should be sure to well understand both career paths before deciding which you want to pursue. Our users shared their thoughts below.
Being good at math isn't really necessary for banking - the highest math you use is essentially basic arithmetic/is very basic. Persuasive arguments are also helpful in banking if you're a senior banker trying to sell a deal. I would recommend doing a lot more research on what each job entails and thinking about it carefully - no one can or should make this decision for you.
If you enjoy persuasive argumentation, you are likely looking for a career that involves critical thought - Investment Banking is not that career (at the junior level). 70% of your time is spent doing somewhat mind numbing work, 10% is being yelled at, and 20% is doing work you're actually interested in so if you are passionate about law - go for it.
If you want to geek out on math, be a quant. I've done both lawyer and banker. I did both advice law (tax) and execution law (M&A and ECM). I prefer banking. You see the underwear of the economy more in banking.
You should only go into law if you want to be a trial lawyer (i.e. arguing in court). Bear in mind that this involves a TON of procedural work and arguing over relatively minor points. Some people enjoy having their day in court - I personally do not have such illusions of grandeur.If you enjoy doing transactions, you will hate being an execution lawyer. You have no idea what the strategic/financial rationale behind every transaction and your main role is to ensure that the deal doesn't go tits up.
Why You Shouldn't Become a Lawyer
User @SSits", a risk management vice president, went on to offer some detail about what frustrated them about their career in the law and what they preferred about investment banking.
I suspect if I'd stayed in law, I'd still feel it was enjoyable. However, I got out and I believe the type of banking I do is more enjoyable, as:
- I feel the return on knowledge in law slows down dramatically - once you hit senior associate or so, you've mastered ~90% of the technical skills you need, learning the remaining ~10% of skills/knowledge takes years and doesn't return that much value
- While there are soft skills/networking/rain making skills to be learned as a lawyer, that wouldn't make up for the slow technical growth
- In the types of banking I've done, there's constant learning about new industries, new business models and new client's businesses and you have both the opportunity and the business need to learn about these, whereas in legal advisory it's not mission critical (even if it was, you'd have limited ability)
- I get much more intellectual joy wrapping my head around the commercial factors in a business and having input into commercial decisions, while I felt legal advisory was more removed from the action and more quarantined from the 'real action' ie the business itself
- Being a advisory lawyer means you are always servicing a client. That means jumping when your client says jump. IE If your clients are bankers or PE funds, often that means sitting in negotiations all day with them, then going back to the office and drafting up agreements to reflect those negotiations all night. Over and over.
- I prefer banking because I'm the one negotiating the commercial deal, not just documenting what someone else has negotiated and ensuring the legal t's are crossed and i's dotted
Decided to Pursue a Wall Street Career? Learn How to Network like a Master.
Inside the WSO Finance networking guide, you'll get a comprehensive, all-inclusive roadmap for maximizing your networking efforts (and minimizing embarrassing blunders). This info-rich book is packed with 71 pages of detailed strategies to help you get the most of your networking, including cold emailing templates, questions to ask in interviews, and action steps for success in navigating the Wall Street networking process.
Being good at math isn't really necessary for banking - the highest math you use is essentially basic arithmetic/is very basic. Persuasive arguments are also helpful in banking if you're a senior banker trying to sell a deal.
You are focusing on the wrong things - for example, as a junior lawyer I'm not sure how much persuasive argument is a part of your job (correct me if I'm wrong). I would recommend doing a lot more research on what each job entails and thinking about it carefully - no one can or should make this decision for you.
You'd benefit from shadowing in both professions to find out what they actually do. You don't seem understand what each profession actually does.
Do you want to be an oral argument lawyer (ie courts and tribunals), advice writing lawyer or execution lawyer? Sounds more like the first or second.
As some have commented above, the math in IB doesn't go much beyond the occasional power operation.
If you want to geek out on math, be a quant.
I've done both lawyer and banker. I did both advice law (tax) and execution law (M&A and ECM). I prefer banking. You see the underwear of the economy more in banking.
Agree with SSits. You should only go into law if you want to be a trial lawyer (i.e. arguing in court). Bear in mind that this involves a TON of procedural work and arguing over relatively minor points. Some people enjoy having their day in court - I personally do not have such illusions of grandeur.
If you enjoy doing transactions, you will hate being an execution lawyer. You have no idea what is the strategic/financial rationale behind every transaction and your main role is to ensure that the deal doesn't go tits up - hardly the most interesting work imho.
I can tell you that you should avoid law school like bubonic plague. I went and now am in salestrading. Love salestrading. Hate law or any aspect of law.
If you're going to do a shit job you might as well be paid handsomely for it right? IB it is my friend.
Doing a job isn't a question of getting paid. You will not like law. Most people hate law. I hate law. Finance is fun if you like markets, macroeconomics, being apart of a company's financial changes, ie bond deals.
To those with law experience - what made you think you would enjoy the work? I have a genuine interest in the law (listen to oral arguments, find the legal side of news articles I read the most interesting) but hear exclusively negative things about law school and being a lawyer.
I was attracted to the law because I've got strong technocrat leanings and liked the idea of have mastery of an intricate, soft and hard rule-based system which was a mystery to most. That's what got me into tax law.
When I later moved into M&A/ECM (as part of a rotation system), I found that it was 70% execution, 30% advisory/mysteries of law. Execution was still a largely technical skillset, but also with a soft human interaction and networking edge that I liked. There was still a good degree of the mysteries of law in this type of advisory work as well. I enjoyed it, partly because I was very good at it and doing what you're good at can often be enjoyable.
I suspect if I'd stayed in law, I'd still feel it was enjoyable. However, I got out and I believe the type of banking I do is more enjoyable, as:
I feel the return on knowledge in law slows down dramatically - once you hit senior associate or so, you've mastered ~90% of the technical skills you need, learning the remaining ~10% of skills/knowledge takes years and doesn't return that much value;
While there are soft skills/networking/rain making skills to be learned as a lawyer, that wouldn't make up for the slow technical growth;
In the types of banking I've done, there's constant learning about new industries, new business models and new client's businesses and you have both the opportunity and the business need to learn about these, whereas in legal advisory it's not mission critical (even if it was, you'd have limited ability);
I get much more intellectual joy wrapping my head around the commercial factors in a business and having input into commercial decisions, while I felt legal advisory was more removed from the action and more quarantined from the 'real action' ie the business itself.
Also, being a advisory lawyer means you are always servicing a client. That means jumping when your client says jump.
If your clients are bankers or PE funds, often that means sitting in negotiations all day with them, then going back to the office and drafting up agreements to reflect those negotiations all night. Over and over.
Again, I prefer banking because I'm the one negotiating the commercial deal, not just documenting what someone else has negotiated and ensuring the legal t's are crossed and i's dotted.
I do the important stuff and the lawyers scurry around so that the document drafting catches up with what I've negotiated.
And timesheets suck.
I never did court work, so that may be superior to both banking and advisory law.
I do appreciate having been a lawyer. It had a definite benefit for my negotiation skills, my ability to structure a deal and my ability to understand complex agreements. But I'm glad my legal career was a stepping stone rather than the final destination.
Being a lawyer isn't what it's cracked up to be. The class I've enjoyed the most and did the best in school was actually a corporate law class. However, I don't think I would ever fathom going to law school.
If this tells you anything, I've met lawyer-turned bankers way more than I've met banker-turned lawyers. Come to think of it, I've never met a banker-turned lawyer.
Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman CEO) went to Harvard Law :)
I second GrandJury. Against, my better judgment, for circumstantial reasons, I went to law school, hated it, hate law. Now I'm in trading and love it. Lawyers want to be bankers, but never the other way around.
ib vs law (Originally Posted: 01/14/2007)
What made you choose ib over getting a law degree and practicing in M&As. I've read the profile of a few professors at my school's law school and many of them have worked in international m&a. It seems interesting. What role do lawyers play in M&As? Are they involved on the business side of a transaction or do they just draft the documents? I think a law degree opens more doors vs an mba. Any insight is appreciated.
Only people lower on the pole than us.
Chose banking over law cause I wanted the cash straight out of ugrad. Plus, law is fucking dull as hell.
law is a great back office profession
Those guys start at 175k and work 60/hr weeks. At partner level they are making 7 figures while still working 60/hrs a week. That sure as hell beats the hours of ibanking. Plus lawyers generally are a lot smarter. The average HYP student cant even get into George Washington Law, yet alone a good school.
most associates never make equity partner so kiss those 7 figs goodbye.
Most lawyers never even make partner.
The market is saturated with lawyers, look at your government, it comprises mostly of third tier lawyers who couldn't find a job.
60 hours my ass, transaction associates at top firms working banking analyst/associate hours
The hours in corporate law as an associate are really bad, but not quite as bad as the hours as a banking analyst. I think you should go with what interests you more. Personally, I find both areas to be interesting, and may very well go to law school after being a banking analyst. If you're more inclined to working with numbers, banking is probably more up your alley. If you prefer more qualitative work, law may be better for you. Both work on M&A deals, so it's really just what part of the deal interests you most.
As for salaries, both positions will require tremendous sales skills to ever truly make it big (to hit 7 figures). If you have this skill set, you can be successful at either I believe. In fact, at the MD, people switch all the time. Goldman has been hiring restructuring lawyers to beef up its restructuring practice lately (including a notable hire from Kirkland & Ellis, although I cannot remember his name), Wasserstein started as a lawyer, etc. I wouldn't listen to people who tell you that there is better money in IB (assuming you stay in IB). If you switch to a tier1 HF or PE fund and SOMEHOW manage to climb up that tight corporate ladder, than sure, it's better to be in finance.
Average biglaw lawyers in NYC work 65 hours a week. In DC its 55 hours a week. Either way a hell of a lot better than ibanking hours plus you have the freedom to live almost anywhere you want and still make lots of money, while bankers have NYC and Chicago. Most associates never make 7 figures, but most analysts never make 7 figures either. Being a trader is probably the best money/hours/interesting combo.
Sorry, no.
At least in the case of corporate lawyers, they work as hard as or harder than we do. Associates certainly do, and even up to the partner level.
I had a nice, long discussion with an associate at Sidley the other day, and he confirmed that what they do is absolutely brutal.
Just to give an oft-cited example, in a typical drafting session, the bankers and lawyers can be in a room for hours and hours at a time, negotiating the changes to the prospectus (or some other document). That is painful enough, but then the lawyers stay after we do and make the changes before the next morning's distribution.
And so on, and so forth.
i probably have more lawyer friends than any other profession. these kids pull all nighters and routinely work 80+ hours a week. it's not quite as bad as banking and sure the pay is a little higher but the bankers own them. and partnership is almost impossible
go into law if you are interested in it, not as an ibanking alternative
yeah, but practicing law really sucks. it's boring as hell.
Bankers role their eyes at the longwinded crap that the lawyers churn out - and these are bankers, who generate plenty of their own longwinded crap.
You'll draft a five page confidentiality agreement that in effect says "any info we give you is confidential". Everything you'll do is like this.
The difference is that you need to rack-up $125k in law school debt and delay earnings for three years whereas an analyst gets out there now. Plus, once you have a law degree with a focus in one area, you are more stuck in that kind of practice than an analyst that could go for an MBA, seek promotion to associate, leave banking for something else, or even go to law school if you actually decide that you want to do what your bitch lawyuers have been doing during deals.
I know several corporate lawyers who have left practice, earned an MBA, and become associates at investment banks. I have never heard of an analyst going back to law school to practice corporate law. (I did know one that went to law school with an aim to practice environmental advocacy - but he was driven by something other than a money/time payoff)
I do actually know of some people who went to ls after being an analyst. I don't know of anyone, however, who went to ls after working as a biglaw associate though.
yeah, never mind. brain fart.
Any of you that think Corp Law Associates work anything near what we do as Analyst are severely mistaken. "Good Standing", so that you receive the full bonus amount for your class year (which is lockstep) is roughly 1900 hours billed per year. That comes out to less than 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year. They receive 4 weeks vacation, which many, if not most, end up taking.
60 hours is a rough week, and will be followed by a 30 hour or less week if the associate isn't busy. Yes, there are times when they will work later than us, turning a document when a deal is closing. But, after that is over, they can take a couple of easy days when we are back in the office.
Sure, the money is less than a banking Associate makes, but it is way more than what an Analyst has historically made. I'm sure we are all well aware of the fact that analyst bonuses won't be what they have been for the last few years for much longer. Things will settle down, and we will be back to the days of small bonuses. But the lawyers have their money mostly in salary, which won't be affected by an economic downturn. Their bonuses are only $35k for first year associates, but salary is $145k.
And as far as most lawyers not making partner at the big firms, that is true. But, most analysts don't make MD or jump to a Hedge Fund or Private Equity, so what is the difference? Lawyers either go in house and make just as much money as a Senior Assocaite at a big firm ($300-350k), or they switch to the business side and compete with us for jobs.
If you can convince your parents to pay for law school, it isn't such a bad deal. The hours are def. better than banking, and the money isn't bad. That being said, I prefer saying "I'm a banker" to "I'm a lawyer" any day of the week.
"1900 hours billed per year.That comes out to less than 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year"
billable hours is not the same as hours worked. It's like me saying that b/c you screw around during the day and take a long lunch you don't actually work 100 hours a week, b/c those would be 'non billable'
My older bro is a corp lawyer and he works MINIMUM 75hour work weeks. You are kidding yourself believing its anything less than that.
I'm probably one of the few people here who actually practiced biglaw in nyc and is in the process of switching to IB. Hours at the top law firms in NY are horrendous - typically 80 or more hours a week and it doesn't get any better if and when you make partner. The work is mind numbingly dull. Yes, biglaw associates make more than analysts, but compared to banking associates, they get crushed.
I really don't know anyone working a Minimum of 75 hours a week in Biglaw.
Also, most associates bill for 90+% of the time that they are in the office, so a 40 hour work week will yield almost 40 hours of billable hours.
This is what I know from several friends and family in biglaw in NYC.
No first or second year associate works close to 40 hours a week in big law, I would say average of 80-90, I work with these people all the time and they are here almost as much as me
No first or second year associate works close to 40 hours a week in big law, I would say average of 80-90, I work with these people all the time and they are here almost as much as me
People: there is a big difference in the hours between M&A biglaw and the rest of biglaw.
I think people are considering only lawyers who work on corporate finance related transaction (M&A and financing with larger banks/larger deals)
if one already has an undergrad business degree would it not make more sense to get a law degree vs an mba, even if you want to stay on the business side of transactions.
before going into IB so take my word for this. Typically, you have to work 33% more hours than you bill, minimum. So, if you have to bill 2000 in a year, you have to work 2000*1.33. That's the MINIMUM billable hours to continue working at the firm on the partnership track (though, in reality, about 6% of associates actually make partner). Your first several years (5 at least, probably 7) will be just like that - highly competitive, tons of face time, lots of billable hours. Meanwhile, you will make the same money as a first-year law associate as you can make as a stub-year banking associate ($140k salary + $40k bonus vs. $40k sign-on bonus + $95k salary + $45k stub bonus (estimate for this year)) BUT, your compensation will never be close again. Starting with your first full year as a banking associate, you'll make 2-3x what attorneys make, and the spread gets wider the further out you get. A 5th-year legal associate (who will not be a partner yet, guarantee) may make $175k + $60k bonus but a 5th-year post-MBA banker is a vice-president, and this year, that person at a BB will make somewhere around $600k all-in.
There is just no comparison, that's why you frequently see attorneys become bankers, but you almost never see it the other way around. At the margin, associate attorneys may work a little less, but not enough to make up for the substantial amount of money you're giving up, especially after the first year.
I've worked as a paralegal in a law firm and a summer associate in banking. My take is that the analysts in banking do far, far, far more substantive and interesting work than paralegals do. And, ditto comparing ib associates to law firm junior associates. In ib you're given more responsibility and you learn a lot more. In my experience lawyers work shorter hours but get paid less. But the real difference IMO comes from the substance of the work--far more of a learning experience and more interesting in banking.
Big NY Firms Pay Scale is as follows
1st year: 145,000 + 35,000 bonus 25 years old 2nd year: 155,000 + 40,000 bonus 26 years old 3rd year: 170,000 + 45,000 bonus 27 4th year: 190,000 + 50,000 bonus 28 5th year: 215,000 + 55,000 bonus 29 6th year: 235,000 + 60,000 bonus 30
some firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins pay higher bonuses, resulting in higher total comp. Wachtell pays 100% bonuses, resulting in $290,000 for first years, and going up accordingly to roughly $500,000 for 6th years.
I listed the approximate ages of the associate that goes to law school straight out of undegrad for comaprisons sake.
Partners, if you make it, average around $2-3mm a year.
you only get these bonuses if you hit certain billable hour requirements though and they are generally very high. as far as wachtell goes, you have a better chance of getting a job at Blackstone.
On the contrary, there are no billable hour requirements tied to bonuses at the big NYC law firms. I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but hour requirements are only for firms outside of NY or those that are not in the top 20 or so firms. Even then, the requirement is generally 1900 hours, which isn't "very high", especially considering our line of work.
Agreed on the Wachtell comment.
what kind of hours do partners in big law put in?
I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but as someone who actually practiced biglaw in nyc, i can tell you for sure that these bonuses are usually tied to some extent by hours billed. It's usually some combo of billables and "merit." It's very dangerous for someone to simply assume he will get a 50k year-end bonus as a 4th year when it's far from a sure thing.
Rumor has it that Wachtell partners put in major hours, mostly because the partner to associate ration is 1:1. This is also part of the reasons the partners, and assocaites, there make double what the rest of the firms make.
Partners at other firms, from what I've heard, put in a typical 8 hour day, but put in more time as deals are closing. It is all about leverage in the business, as they make money directly off the backs of those below them.
I just spoke to three friends about it, out of curiousity, all at different firms that I mentioned, and they confirmed what i previously posted. Also, it is stated very clearly on the Greedy Associates board at www.infirmation.com.
Your V20 firm might have had an hours and quality requirement, but the top NYC Firms do not. Everyone in the class year gets the same bonus regardless of hours.
Boutique IB vs. Law (Originally Posted: 04/12/2011)
Hi all -
I'm in a bit of a dilemma and need some advice if any would be kind enough to give it. I'm interested in both law and finance, so am at a genuine loss as to which to choose. Overall, I suppose I'd like to end up in M&A/PE (hmm...original).
(1) First role is as a at a decent big-law firm (US-vault 10). I will get to work across Restructuring, Banking & Finance, PE M&A and Private Funds as a minimum. Client roster is pretty amazing. Host of megafunds and loads of very decent mid-market players.
(2) The other is at a very reputable boutique investment bank (think Blackstone Advisory, Greenhill, Lazard, Moelis etc) in their Private Funds Group which falls within Advisory IBD (3rd Party marketing of Private Equity Funds across Buyout, Credit, Mezz, Special Situations, Real Estate etc) - this role basically invovles Sales (pitching the fund to Limited Partner Investors). Role also invovles drafting pitche books, PPM, Investment Memo etc. Tonnes of travelling too. Client roster is ok. Normally top quartile mid-market funds. Main exit opps appear to be going to other agents or in Investor Relations at a mega- or large- fund.
So yeah, which would you go for? Thanks in advance for the help.
I would say IB
Boutique, otherwise this will be your life in BigLaw. http://www.leveragedsellout.com/2006/08/biglaw-bigschmaw/
Need more color. Are you graduating from Law School? If so, go with big law and look to lateral to a BB or top boutique in M&A or Leveraged Finance after a couple of years (this is reasonably common). You don't want to work in a private funds group if your end goal is either M&A or PE.
I want to say go with the law firm. Specialize in a relevant area (M&A, Restructuring, etc.), and by the time you're ready to move over (a few years) you should have the knowledge and network to make the jump into a great group at a top bank/advisory firm.
A good friend of mine had the exact same dilemma this past year (top-10 law associate vs. top boutique - analyst level), and he opted for the law firm. Not the definitively right answer, but one that you shouldn't feel uncomfortable about making.
I dont know why people keep on lumping in Moelis with Lazard/BX/Greehill. Its embarrassing.
^Whoops didnt read the whole description. Yea its not in IBD, take Law.
Why would you take a job as an analyst out of law school?
1) You're a troll
2) Assuming the 1% chance you're not a troll, than I'd keep in mind the fact that you COULD be able to switch from law over to IB one day, but you'll NEVER be able to switch from IB over to Law... if you don't start in law, you'll never be in law.
If you enjoy persuasive argumentation, you are likely looking for a career that involves critical thought - Investment Banking is not that career (at the junior level). 70% of your time is spent doing somewhat mind numbing work, 10% is being yelled at, and 20% is doing work you're actually interested in so if you are passionate about law - go for it.
Career dilema - law vs banking (Originally Posted: 03/29/2007)
Heya guys, I've got a question about a problem I'm having.
I'm a final year student in Australia. I'm doing a double degree. The first component of it was a bachelor of business (finance major) and the second is an LLB which results in me getting a practicing certificate for law.
For the last 5 years I've had the crazy ambition to work in VC, which led me to start a small IT business when I was 19, which then led me to start a venture backed startup when I was 23. Two months ago, I've had to close down the shop, go back to uni and finish my studies. Along the way, I've discovered that I don't want to work in VC anymore.
So the problem I'm having is this: I can't decide whether I should be applying for law or banking job. I'm worried that if I start in banking, I won't be able to ever go back into law, whilst thinking that if I start working in law I can migrate to an associate position in banking after 2-3 years.
What do you think I should do? Should I start in banking or law? Is there a prejudice for hiring lawyers to work in banking?
Thanks
I talked to a partner at a top law firm in DC, and she said that accouting/finance experience gained as a banker would make for a very attractive candidate for a lot of types of work.
Agreed, financial work experience will def make law firms consider you that previously wouldn't have. How good is the law school you are coming from? Lawyers have a great lifestyle in terms of hours to pay, but those are only at market paying firms which esp in DC require a pretty good law school.
Great lifestyle? I thought lawyers hours at top firms, at least out of school were comparable to bankers (80s, 90s, 100s, etc.)
At least in structured finance, there seem to be many ex-lawyers or people trained in law. Many are transplants from law firms. Moves, however, do not seem consistent. Many end up doing law work, but just at a bank or asset manager, whereas others end up being something closer to bankers. Familiarity with market mechanics, jargon, and pricing/modeling conventions seem to define the financial 'bar'.
A law degree offers great flexibility to lateral to other industries as a lawyer. Also don't discount positions in government, which can be very powerful. However, law firms often function as outsourced cost centers, and cost centers are often less industry specific.
Keep in mind that law schools routinely admit older students. For what it's worth, I would recommend trying a banking job and see how far you get. If you don't get very far after a few years, then try law. Law firms usually don't take incoming associates much into their 30's, so plan accordingly.
It seems you have a strong inclination to be entrepreneurial... pursue a banking job. First, you actually have it backwards, if you start in banking and realize you prefer law, then it's easier to transition from banking to law. BTW, I disagree with the above post. Law firms certainly DO take associates into their 30s.
If you start in law first, it's an uphill battle to convince folks why you now want to do banking. Generally speaking, I believe law firms and attorneys are more forgiving of people's backgrounds and you could enter the field at an older age without stigma. Unfortuntely, simply doesn't work the same in banking.
Thanks guys, I especially identify with the point about firm culture.
Lawyers don't seem to have a preference for the ages of their applicants.
With banks, it seems you gotta go in before 26, or risk having to be an office misfit.
I'm 24, so it seems I better go into banking, or I'll just get to old to be able to do it later on.
Career confusion - Legal vs Investment Banking (Originally Posted: 03/28/2015)
I am due to start my training contract (to become a lawyer) next year, and have spent the past (nearly) 2 years in a tier 1 investment bank on a derivatives documentation project.
Recently, I've realised I really enjoy working in an investment bank and particularly enjoy derivatives and structured finance. I'm 26 now so unfortunately not a new graduate, so bagging summer internships etc is out the question, so I'm now just hoping to land a new role which hopefully might be able to give me more insight in to whether I really want to train to be a lawyer, or whether I could live a career in investment banking.
I'd be pretty confident with going into my law firm if they had a strong derivatives/structured finance focus, but it's a US law firm and predominantly works on private client and litigation work, with banking/finance/corporate being more an ancillary function, in London at least.
I've been reading a lot into securitisation and structured products, but the junior roles seem almost non-existent. Am I looking in the wrong places? Or are these roles very few? The role I'm in would probably more easier put me in to derivatives documentation/negotiation, but I feel this is a shrinking area (more standardisation/near-shoring)
Alternatively, I've thought maybe advisory compliance would allow me to link together a 'story' in terms of law and understanding derivatives products. Or even regulatory work is very interesting to me, so I've been looking at roles within these areas, without a great deal of success.
I've been spending most my free time reading up on Capital Markets in general, and I know even if I trained to become a lawyer, it would be with the view of hopefully working in-house in an investment bank one day.
What is your question? Do you have a question?
Having re-read my post, there isn't an actual question.
I guess I'm curious to hear from anyone that may have been in a similar predicament and/or made a switch from law to IB.
Also, if anyone has any suggestions on what might be a good junior-ish area to look into, I'd be curious. The direct derivatives roles I'm getting interviews for tends to be all Derivatives operations (Confirmations) which I gather is rather dull. I quite want to use my next year to hopefully gain some experience in an area that perhaps may be my 'alternative' to law.
Breaking into I-banking v. Biglaw (Originally Posted: 02/02/2007)
Which is harder to break into? I'm planning to work as a paralegal for a few years so I can get a taste of life as a lawyer, and I was wondering how hard it would be to break into i-banking without any real impressive work experience, a degree from a fancy school, or a business/quantitative background?
I went to an average liberal arts college, majored in philosophy, and did pretty well but not stellar. I'm having doubts about law in major part because of the money-I found out that not only is it impossible to make partner but it's pretty hard to make money (at least 6 figures in my definition) if you don't come from a top school so I'm exploring alternatives.
Voluptas ea ducimus corporis. Tempore sed veniam rerum perferendis. Mollitia mollitia beatae et provident. Odio quod aliquid autem et. Sit repudiandae doloremque enim quod nobis. Quo voluptas sunt at voluptate labore modi saepe.
Voluptates quia dolore eum. Quia sunt consectetur nulla qui ut. Vel enim est laboriosam excepturi.
Sint nihil vel quod veniam earum voluptatem doloribus. Autem iusto necessitatibus voluptatem voluptate suscipit et rerum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Vero laborum iusto molestias velit. Reiciendis quia sapiente qui consequatur ut dolorem aperiam. Sint temporibus libero eveniet.
Quam delectus dolore exercitationem laudantium unde dolor et aliquid. Tempora iusto ducimus numquam excepturi odit. Deserunt harum quaerat totam unde.
Ut dolorem aperiam molestias quia molestiae est culpa. Qui tempora molestiae in totam voluptas iste sed autem. Doloremque vel consectetur quam eum error.
Molestias quia quia cumque consequatur enim esse. Nostrum architecto dolore dolor recusandae maxime. Consequatur at cum consequatur aperiam amet.
Eligendi possimus ea iusto corrupti praesentium dicta ut dolores. Ullam odio sed veritatis quaerat assumenda. Nemo recusandae velit mollitia ad.