JD/MBA for Distressed PE and/or Rx
So the topic of using a JD/MBA as a gateway to IB and finance has been shot down before and rightly so the JD and law in general is not quantitative AT ALL, so it does not prepare anyone or add any real value in the traditional sense and traditional avenues of finance.
Would the JD/MBA add value however for someone who has the ultimate goal of working in a Distressed PE fund or even Rx? Doing some linkedin stalking and profile stalking of respective websites (BX & HLHZ) there are several people at both that do in fact have JDs. This makes sense when you really think about the nature of the work and how restructuring works and people evaluate distressed investments... It all comes down to credit docs, legal writing, indentures, etc. So at that point wouldn't the JD add decent value?
I am asking because I am putting off finals studying and have spent the last 3/4 hours doing research into JD/MBA programs as well as some of the Law Firms that work in the space and did some linkedin searches to see where these JD/MBA kids end up from programs like Columbia, Penn, NYU, Harvard, and Northwestern.
It is interesting that a decent chunk end up in Big Law at places like Sullivan & Cromwell, Weil, and Skadden which are all top 10 law firms and are big in the PE/Rx/Transactional space. There are also those that end up at banks I saw some people at Greenhill, etc.
So if your ultimate goal is Distressed PE or Rx post MBA why wouldn't you try to tack on an extra year of school with the JD (3 year programs like Northwestern, Penn, and Columbia). Columbia actually frees up both summers for its students which means you have the opportunity for 2 internships. That means you could theoretically do an internship at one of the top law firms in the world (S&C/Weil/Skadden) doing PE/Distressed/Rx work and then utilize your 2nd summer something more finance (career related such as BX or Carlyle/Third Ave/TPG/etc.)
And a quick search of Third Ave. shows the CIO is a JD/MBA from Chicago and the CEO is a JD from Brooklyn Law School
A MD at Cerberus has a JD
A Senior Partner at Ares has a JD
2 Senior Partners in PE at Apollo have JDs
1 Partner at Apollo in the Real Estate group has a JD/MBA from Chicago
not saying that the JD/MBA should be the new way to break into PE but its interesting to note.. I wanted to end with this point before jackasses jump on and try flaming this as "stupid and irrelevant" or "well there are only 7 guys on your list". Would there be more of these profiles if more people went into these programs? The top schools for these programs have anywhere from 10-40 people in them. So if anything considering the small number of people graduating with this combo each year that the odds are actually good that you could end up in one of these roles? See below
http://tippingthescales.com/2013/11/jdmbas-whos-crazy-enough-to-get-bot…
calikid3820 this is a solid question and a question I've asked several times when networking. Overall the consensus is even though a JD degree is advantageous in fields like distressed investing and real estate due to the high amount of contracts it's not worth the extra 2 years in school. Also, from people I have talked with said for the most part they still need to talk to internal counsel or their lawyer on major deals. Some of the people you mentioned who worked at some of the most prestigious who then lateraled over into banking/private equity got their JDs because they wanted to become lawyers not the next Carl Icahn. Since bankers/PE firms deal with bankers on a consistent basis this is viewed as another way to get into banking/PE.
The extra 2 years in school isn't worth it. Now, if you wanted to do a 3 year MBA/JD at say Columbia/Penn/Northwestern that might be more with it, but still hard to justify if you don't ever want to practice law.
You'll be taught the genesis of the legal system bla bla, you wont become experienced in the nuances of an inter-creditor agreement, the latter skill set can only be gained through experience.
This. You won't learn anything in law school that will make you a better distressed investor. There are plenty of guys who do well in distressed without a JD. The ones who do have JDs have almost all practiced law (at the top firms). So the question is: "What's the value to a distressed firm of a JD with zero actual experience practicing law?"
My guess? Nothing.
Plus, imagine cramming the coursework for both an MBA and a JD into 3 years....that sounds fucking terrible, and law school already sucks. You should be spending your time as an MBA networking, attending info-sessions, etc., not studying for two different degrees. It's a bitch and a half interviewing for PE jobs already. Now imagine doing that with way less time than everyone else because you have to keep up with your law classes? Sounds like a nightmare. If you're set on distressed debt, study things that will actually help you become a better debt investor. Buy a book on credit agreements or something and read it. It'll save you money, time, and you'll learn more.
Oh absolutely I completely understand that the JD without the 10-15 years of experience isn't the same as the JDs who end up at these firms... Not saying I plan on doing a JD/MBA or even an MBA but to say the JD adds no value without the experience to back it up is the same as saying the MBA adds no value without the experience to back it up. An MBA alone won't get you a job in PE, neither will the JD, nor the JD/MBA.
Just saying from my opinion... I would seriously consider a JD/MBA at a Columbia where you have the chance to intern at a Big Law firm in an M&A, PE, Distressed, or Restructuring focused practice and then subsequently take your law internship and years of finance experience into summer MBA recruiting for Ares, Apollo, etc.
Absolutely... The 4 year programs should never be considered and rightly so. The 3 year programs though are interesting. It is just interesting to see. I know that those guys are "exceptions not the rule" and "didn't get their JDs with the intent to do finance".
GoodL1fe - I am assuming you meant "prestigious firms" and I completely agree that they made the jump because of the pedigree and experience they had, comparable to consultants making the jump from MBB to PE. But the fact that there are people who do it show that these firms do respect that skill set and that the JD does at value for those niche segments of PE.
Oreos - I agree but honestly the same can be said for the MBA. It is a piece of paper and those that go in from Banking/PE don't learn anything from it and experience would add more value. But the nature of the beast is that you gotta check that box to pass go and play the game
I am not saying I am gunning for a JD/MBA or that I think its the key to breaking into PE.. But if I have to go back for an MBA I would seriously consider doing the JD attached. Columbia gives you 2 summers to intern and Penn gives you the option to test out of the Wharton foundation courses (Which is clutch for the intro accounting and finance courses)
Bump... curious as well.
Torn between trying to figure out whether to take the legal or financial advisory route.
I have a few friends doing this at the top programs. It's a mixed bag. In my opinion, you need to have VERY specific reasons for doing so, or else you are wasting precious time and money. Doing a 4-year program at say Harvard/Stanford/UChicago vs an MBA is a huge difference in terms of opportunity cost, so think very carefully about what you want and whether a JD/MBA will substantially increase your chances of getting there. The way I see it there are only a few areas where this holds.
Distressed debt/special situations/event driven investing: JD/MBA helps because as one might imagine, you need to know both the business aspects as well as the legal implications of bankruptcies, mergers, spinoffs, etc. There's a reason why Paulson loves hiring Harvard JD/MBAs.
High level government policy such as Treasury, State, White House, OMB, etc.: MBA from a top school and private sector experience are actually highly valued in policy jobs since you have "real world" experience. The JD though gives you intellectual credibility in that circle and affords you access to a network of people who are already in that D.C. scene.
Running your own business: several JD/MBA alums have told me that they are now more adept at running a company because of both degrees. They have a great understanding of everything that goes behind setting one up, the potential pitfalls, how to manage a team, set goals, and much more. Also they can save money by being their own legal counsel as opposed to hiring someone from outside.
Politics: if you have aspirations for higher office it certainly helps, especially from an elite school. Having access to both the mba and law networks of a school such as Harvard and the relationships you form there will be critical if you are trying to raise money for a major campaign or just to get your foot so you can meet the right donors. If you manage to go really high up, there's a good chance you will hire your former classmates as advisors and campaign chairmen.
Simply put, I am not saying that a JD/MBA is useless if you are not interested in one of these aforementioned fields. But it makes no sense when someone does the degree and ends up at say McKinsey or a law firm. You could have gotten those jobs with just a MBA or a JD. I know this is WSO, where most people are preoccupied with collecting prestige points, but do NOT do a JD/MBA just so you can add more letters to your name and inflate your ego. Do it for the right reasons.
You don't know fucking shit if you haven't actually practiced bankruptcy law.
This is true though, right? The lawyers are the ones running the show in these bankruptcies/restructurings? I feel like advisors/consultants are only there to provide assistance along the way and provide another perspective.
At the end of the day, advisers are advisers (legal included). The debtors pull the trigger when it comes to it. From a very snr guy as HLHZ "all we do is steer the dick in the right direction. They have to put it in"
I think this is kinda where I was going with it.. You obviously are using more examples. From my standpoint one of the 4 year programs wouldn't be worth it considering the 4 years of lost earnings and the very small incremental advantage of the JD for business kids or the MBA for law kids..
My gf is at Penn Law and they only have 2 classes in bankruptcy related topics... It is also true that the JD without the accompanying experience really isn't a value add for the PE Fund.. But what value does the MBA add to the PE Fund? Yet there are god knows how many kids trying to break into MBA programs without the accompanying experience and yet some make it.. Either because of the courses they took our their specialized experience/perspective that they have gained through their work experience....
In general I would say its extremely hypocritical to say the coursework and value gained from a JD curriculum (and experience from at least an internship in a Big Law firm) would be useless to a PE fund.. I didn't know about Paulson but it makes sense to me. I 100% agree that the full value of a JD isn't from the degree its from the years of experience
Just be aware that to write off the degree because of the lack of associated experience is basically killing the dreams of every person who goes into a top MBA with the hopes of post-mba PE if they don't have pre-mba PE.. Same would apply to IB career changers or people coming from FP&A, consulting, etc.
Worth Getting a JD/MBA from Harvard or Stanford for Distressed Debt Investing? (Originally Posted: 04/14/2014)
I have been accepted to both the JD and MBA programs at either Harvard or Stanford and I'm wondering if it's worth taking another two years to get both the JD and the MBA vs just the MBA. My main goal is to work for a distressed debt / credit fund and I know that the JD adds value for that, but I'm not sure how much.
How much will having both degrees help a) getting a job initially, and b) down the line from a branding and networking perspective? I've heard people advise against JD/MBAs because of cost etc, but this was often at schools where one degree significantly outweighed the other (e.g. Penn/Wharton or Yale). Given the strength of both programs at H/S, would this be worth it?
I've gotten pretty divergent views from people I've asked about this. Some have been very pro getting both degrees, while others have questioned the cost and utility of having both. If it makes any difference, my background is a couple years BB IBD and a couple of years at a MM buyout shop. Thanks in advance for any help.
This has been discussed before - search bar.
deleted
I have friends at HSW recruiting for distressed debt / credit HFs (assume this is what you mean?). From their own backgrounds and what you've said about yours, you should get interviews. The only real extra is to have restructuring experience, or PE experience doing distressed. I don't think the JD/MBA is that important.
The only real benefit for the JD/MBA is if you want to do something that really requires the law, like maybe real estate. However, I've had friends have as much success without the dual degree in getting top real estate jobs as those with JD/MBA. Most of the people I've met doing dual degree 1) actually want to become lawyers or 2) their work experience coming in might not have gotten them the MBA jobs they wanted and they needed the extra year.
Thanks for the info. The primary reason I'm concerned is that my background doesn't scream "distressed debt" and I thought the law degree might help with that. I'm genuinely interested in the law, but if I can get the job I want with just an MBA then it probably isn't worth $100k + opportunity cost
Why not just get the MBA and take a few courses that are relevant to distressed debt investing at the law school?
I know someone who has taken this approach at 1 of your 2 schools, and it has worked fine (i.e., landed distressed job, learned a few relevant tips/tricks at law school, did this all in 2 years b/c of MBA path)
The law degree may help but you're still not really bringing anything to the table if you don't have real-world experience.
That said, BB background, pre-MBA PE and JD/MBA at either of those two schools makes for a strong resume and you should get some looks.
Path to distressed investing -> MBA/JD dual degree? (Originally Posted: 12/30/2014)
Hey everyone,
As the title says, I've been mulling this idea around in my head for a little while and wanted to hear your thoughts. A quick background on myself - sparing too many details: graduated from a non target a couple years ago and started as a fixed income research associate at a mmf. After a year (and passing L1 of CFA), I moved to a HY research role at a BB.
Now, here are the pros and cons I've worked out for pursuing this avenue. Pros: 1. I come from an extremely obscure school with virtually no name in the finance community. While I did obtain a degree in finance, the courses were not rigorous by any means. Also, while I hate to say it, I feel that adding some pedigree to my resume would sharpen it quite a bit. 2. If I were to go back to school, I'd likely try to pair my MBA with something more, and feel that a JD would be great when it comes to distressed investing and would be a bonus when it comes to the actual job (though, not necessary). 3. Not having any banking experience or training, I feel at a disadvantage esp when it comes to the more event driven/ss/restructuring related nature of this strategy. Being intimately familiar with the restructuring process from the inside has huge advantages IMO. Though related, there is a large disparity between the HY and the dd investor's approach and rationale to investing. 4. Given my current seat, I'm granted to privilege of listening and speaking with the distressed guys at our shop and across the street on the buy side. It seems to me that the distressed investing community is kind of split between two camps: those that worked in lev fin, m&a or rx banking and have hands on experience, and those that have come from b-school/ex-lawyers/etc.
Cons: 1. I'm over thinking this. Perhaps my experience alone will be enough to see me through. I'm sitting for L2 of the CFA exam this summer and perhaps after a few more years experience in HY, will be competent enough to make a foray into DD. Plus, I'm relatively new to my seat, so over time, perhaps I'll cultivate the relationships necessary to move to a dd shop or lateral to a ss distressed seat. 2. Perhaps b-school would be a waste of time for me, and a JD is not really necessary in distressed. Considering that the dual programs usually take at least three years and run a bit higher in terms of tuition, it could be an unbelievably high cost for something unnecessary or to defined a goal. 3. It would be silly to pursue a dual degree in order to get a dd seat at shop. It's a relatively obscure strategy. So again, taking a huge cost in order to obtain a very specific goal.
To qualify some of my thoughts, I'm not planning on pursuing any of these plans in the near future and if I were to, would naturally only aim at the more value adding schools in the north east US.
Interested to hear your responses.
Regards,
This question has been covered several times in this forum. Try googling it - those posts were very insightful in my opinion.
As for the JD/MBA idea, the misconception is that JD would help with distressed debt, and it might marginally but unless you actually work in a law firm, it's almost worthless. It is another degree but another 1-2 years and 120K of debt for something that has little to no utility unless you might think you'd want to practice law in the future.
Also, have you taken the LSAT? It's not like the GMAT or any other exam. It requires a huge time commitment and is the biggest portion of your law school application. If you come from a no name school, to get into a top law program alone, you'd need an awesome 170+ for the likes of Stanford, HLS, Upenn, Columbia, etc. In terms of the cost benefit aspect, it seems like another piece of paper with marginal utility.
Why does every prospective JD think the degree alone (w/o work exp) would be useful for distressed investing? Or for anything? Don't you know (as every real lawyer will tell you) the only thing a JD prepares you for is the bar exam? It's frankly as useful -- or useless -- as an MBA.
Having a solid legal understanding is important for distresses, but you don't need 3 years of law school for this. You could probably just augment your MBA with a handful of specific law or business classes to give you what you need. You'll have in house counsel and a legal team to do the heavy lifting.
Brooksfit- thanks, I'll look later. And you really don't believe it's help? I say that because I read covenants quite a bit, but bk docs and reorg plans are still nearly impossible for me. I've also had a friend who works on a SS desk say that getting a law degree wouldnt be a bad idea. The LSAT part is a good point though, I know very little about that test.
Mrb87- You seem to be looking at my proposal in a vacuum, which is not what it would be. I'm currently working in HY and am becoming more familiar with cov docs and language, but was making the considering the case of an extra year of school for a law degree as ensuring a greater understanding of bk court processes.
Tna- as I said, it's only be an additional one year, but thanks for your input. I know many dd funds have legal teams, but thought it still might be worth it. And, as petty of me as it may sound, my thoughts were that it would be nice to have a degree or title that qualifies some sort of legal or bk process knowledge.
Thanks everyone for your input. Interested to hear any more thoughts, and am not trying to be stubborn, just trying to make a rigorous case for why or why not (since you are all providing the why not). Sorry for any typos or grammatical faults and if I'm terse. On my phone
Okay, that's fair. Sorry, I missed the fact that you're already in HY, but I still think real-world experience (either continuing on in the HY/investing space as recommended by Cries, or as a practicing lawyer) is more valuable than just a degree. Point remains that JD in and of itself will not fast-track you.
You're right, it might not be a bad idea because you'll get at least some classroom experience reading and writing legal documents (somewhat). I say that because what you learn in law school and what you actually do/learn at a law firm are vastly different. Just because you can't read the bk docs and reorganization plans now doesn't mean you'll be able to because you went to law school - this is most likely a skill cultivated by 3-4 years in a law firm doing this work under the guidance of an experienced associate/mentors. I'd ask a friend why he/she thinks that a law degree wouldn't be a bad idea and contrast it to what people have said in this post and others on the same topic.
Also, you should definitely look into getting more insight into the LSAT. Working a full-time job at a BB AND studying for the LSAT to score well is not an easy task at all. If you're really dedicated and set on this, perhaps take a practice test or two and get a feeling of where your base is. There are plenty of posts and guides online about how much you'd need to study over the next 3-6 months depending on your raw score (without studying) and where you want to be.
I was in your shoes. Thought I wanted to get a JD/MBA or maybe even a JD. I considered practicing law a few years and then switching over. However, after I took the LSAT and was filling out my application for HLS, I realized that I wasn't passionate about law, I just simply indifferent at best. That level of commitment doesnt justify 2 years + six figures in debt + opportunity cost of work. Best of luck.
Alright, I've done some reading on my own and appreciate everyone's onerously redundant input. Thanks again
Ignore @TNA as thats irrelevant. Funds would take a Rx analyst over a Weil associate to be a pre-mba associate. It is distressed INVESTING... The value of the JD comes through years of law experience at a firm. If you JD/MBA you will have to do a full year of core law classes including torts which is irrelevant to what you want it for. You will pay an extra $50,000 - $100,000 for a law degree where at most you will be able to take 2 to 3 bankruptcy classes and will all be framed in minute details surrounding the legal steps of bankruptcy.
The people you see in Distressed PE or HF that have a JD generally have at least 3-4 years of experience at a firm such as Weil. There are a fair number of people with JD/MBAs that do well and are in Distressed Investing but its highly dependent on their background. Its more likely than not that they are a more traditional finance person who is more of an MBA candidate that tacked on a JD and the sad part is they likely dont use the JD at all as they may not even be barred in a state.
Ive talked to everyone from Distressed PMs and MDs to kids currently doing a JD/MBA at one of Chicago/Penn/Columbia and also kids in Law School headed to top firms such as Skadden and Weil, because I also was/am interested in a JD/MBA there is just little benefit from it when speaking generally. The JD/MBA kids I know are going into law firms and are going to get no real value from their mba.
Your background will probably fit for a distressed oriented credit hedge fund, but you are right that there will be a skillset difference when interviewing against a Lazard rx analyst. It isnt that you cant do the analyses but they are more proficient after doing them on x number of deal(s) and pitches.
OP,
My recommendation is to get out of sellside research ASAP.
Get into a HY AM shop or HF ASAP. A CLO shop will work as well. Give it 1.5-2yrs at a HY manager, then start hitting recruiters. There are plenty of recruiters who will talk to you with that kind of experience.
Law school wont teach you how to read BK docs. Just practice by yourself after work. Doing academia to learn something practical is never the answer...
Alright, thank you all very much for your insight and opinions. I've become thoroughly convinced that a JD is superfluous in this case.
@"Cries" , is there a reason that you say that?
I only ask because I've actually had decent amount of exposure to what are typically classified as "distressed" companies given that the space I'm in is going through some real cyclical and in some cases, secular, changes.
I could understand a HY HF offering me some better exposure to DD investing, but the real money (HY money managers such as T Rowe, Schroders, AIG, Fido, etc) seems to really shy away from the sticky situations of distressed, and pursue the more relative value / cheap / safer opportunities.
Aside from the "skin in the game" adage, I'm curious to see why you think HY AM would be any better than where I am currently.
I'm a JD/MBA at a 3-year program (Columbia/Northwestern/Penn/Yale). I was fortunate to get a significant scholarship at my top choice and I'm not sure what I would have done if I'd had to pay full fare (since you mentioned CFA, I'm also a charterholder). For most people, amassing all those credentials is probably not necessary to achieving your career goals, but it does provide an extremely wide range of career options if you don't know for sure what you want to do. I kind of hate saying that, because there is a sense (at least in the forums, not necessary in employers' views who generally do like JD/MBAs) that it indicates a certain degree of indecisiveness.
I think the benefit to a JD/MBA isn't something you should expect to see immediately upon graduation, as you'll probably end up working alongside peers who only did one program and incurred less debt (many top law firms do offer second-year status to JD/MBAs, which puts you a "year ahead" in compensation - which if you consider that you're $10-20k ahead every year, isn't too bad). If you're considering a law career, you might really need to demonstrate your commitment to the legal industry, but if you can do that then the MBA will definitely be viewed as an asset. If you're an MBA-type considering the JD as an add-on, the value will probably be more evident as you progress into senior leadership roles and need to understand the legal and regulatory framework of your industry (and talk with "real" lawyers). For MBA-types, I would probably limit my schools to the aforementioned 3-year programs as well as Chicago, Harvard, and Stanford.
I feel very confident in saying that JD/MBAs generally outperform their grades in legal recruiting (although it may be due to the fact they generally have solid work experience in finance/consulting rather than the MBA itself, who knows). There is also a sense of "fraternity" among JD/MBAs both within a school and among peer institutions, and if you look at the profiles of senior staff in investment funds - I assume you're interested in that, given the CFA - you will find a relatively high prevalence of people with both degrees. That said, don't do it if you don't have at least some passion for the law, as you will probably find yourself miserable (1L is no walk in the park) and in more debt than you need to be. And make sure you kill the LSAT, as that will be key for your admissions and financial aid decisions (175+ is best, with 172 and 170 being the next "cutoffs").
the move to buyside is tough but one that should be taken earlier rather than lateri think
JD vs. MBA for distressed debt / special situations? (Originally Posted: 06/02/2014)
I'm currently an IBD analyst heading into a middle market private equity shop this summer. I'm interested in distressed debt investing and would like to move into that area after spending a couple of years in private equity, possibly after going to graduate school. If I do end up going to graduate school, would it be a better idea to get an MBA or a JD? I've already been accepted into Harvard and Stanford law on deferral, but I'm not too sure about my chances for their respective MBAs. Given how competitive buyside recruiting is, I would like to go to the highest ranked program possible and I was wondering if the prestige of Harvard and Stanford law are worth it over the non-HSW M7?
My best guess is that the OCR offered by MBA programs will outweigh any prestige from a Harvard/Stanford law degree if trying to get into distressed debt funds, esp. because many people say a law degree has marginal value at best for distressed investing.
Source: heading into a BB FT IB program and been doing a lot of research on JD/MBA programs, inc. those at Harvard and Stanford.
Marc lasry is a lawyer
My gf is in Law school at an Ivy and has several friends in that schools JD/MBA programs.. All are going to Law Firms. The JD is absolutely USELESSSSS... Every lawyer will tell you that, the value comes through years of experience actually being a lawyer. You can debate if you wanted to do Law School then Weil/Sull Crom/Jones Day/KE/etc. then to distressed vs. MBA to distressed.
I only say this because I have done a lot of research and talked to a lot of jd/mbas and mbas and jds
If you aren't getting a JD from a T14 school it is effectively useless. That being said, Stanford or Harvard Law are exceptional, even so only about 60% of those classes end up in BigLaw, so take that into consideration. Furthermore, the law profession is facing the biggest recession ever in this country.
Why would you get a JD if you wanted to work in IB?
JD-MBA Student Split between Distressed Debt/Real Estate Finance/or Practicing Law (Originally Posted: 08/05/2014)
.
Ya its hard for lawyers to make the switch to the finance side. Its true you have a better understanding of the legalese but are by and large severely lacking on the modeling and finance aspect of investing.
Im actually a huge fan of the JD/MBA for Distressed Rx. I am just trying to scheme a way to actually get benefit out of the JD. The value of a law degree comes from the experience you get working. I havent applied yet and am still years away probably. My opinion comes from my own research, gf in law school at an ivy, people in jd/mba, and research
yea there is definitely value added, but unfortunately from speaking with present day practitioners it appears that it's extremely difficult to transition to a principal investing role once you're already practicing law. This used to be much more common among the previous generation, for whom pretty much everything was easier. I may take that route since I'm already in the program, but in general I'd advise against it unless you get a significant scholarship. The big law world is rough out there, and I'm learning more and more that while degrees look good, it's all about learning on the job. Especially in law school where you're learning more about the doctrinal theory, and less application.
Thanks for response and good luck.
Guys, I am sorry. But I switched from biglaw to banking and you definitely learn a ton more in law school about corporate law than you do as a junior associate.
I've been hearing that. This one big law RE midlevel associate said that one would pick up way more knowledge through a clerkship than what you actually learn during the first few years working in a firm. I know marc lasry and jamie zimmerman went straight into finance from bankruptcy clerkships, but more inadvertently than anything calculated. zimmerman also said she hated the clerkship lol.
Hey man outta curiosity---how are you liking the switch? I think after all that mentioned above, I'm gonna just go through OCI to go through it but really will be gunning for restructuring IB through my b school.
Distressed Investing - Legal (Originally Posted: 01/25/2013)
Anyone know if these guys have their own legal? I would like to reach out to these lawyers (I am assuming they are BK lawyers) and beg them to hire me as a summer intern. I'm in law school with solid bankruptcy experience. Long shot.
Et et ex libero. Dolores qui qui suscipit. Illo eligendi labore quam velit harum illum. Aut voluptatum consequatur laboriosam non. Vitae aut in quo quaerat odio.
Nobis quis quae dolorem voluptatibus corrupti similique maiores. Fugiat est maiores animi quaerat officiis cum doloribus.
Et ea asperiores molestiae suscipit id voluptatem. Laudantium sint magni doloribus placeat. Quo voluptatem nihil necessitatibus minus ea mollitia. Et quo molestias quis quis.
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...
Impedit tempore eum non. Voluptatibus aliquam eligendi voluptatem qui. Harum totam rerum ipsa quia. Beatae aut reprehenderit et.
Hic et est est reiciendis ex architecto explicabo iusto. Consectetur exercitationem est dolores esse ratione dolores. In nihil aliquam repellendus odio facere voluptatem dicta. Enim fugit voluptate voluptatibus. Aperiam libero ipsam ea beatae. Velit culpa animi placeat laboriosam libero expedita.
Laborum totam sed fuga neque est et sunt. Et et officiis quas sed. Sint et reprehenderit assumenda accusamus sunt tempore ea.
Quibusdam mollitia molestiae aliquam deserunt quod. Qui aspernatur ipsum et quia.
Accusantium distinctio incidunt maiores quidem facilis consequatur qui modi. Inventore impedit est officiis saepe enim. Deserunt a sint similique aut nobis modi. Autem nulla porro quia qui neque voluptas.
Quia molestiae in debitis ut. Sed earum deserunt dolore velit deleniti ut. Repudiandae est eaque quo in eligendi. Saepe rerum aliquam delectus nihil voluptate exercitationem.
Non aspernatur animi numquam non consequuntur quae asperiores. Qui fuga quis et suscipit sed blanditiis. Mollitia cumque iste eum dignissimos aspernatur optio. Pariatur in a et expedita ipsa itaque earum eum.