Lawyers

The same reason surgeons think they're hot shit. Basically, because they are by and large smarter than those in finance. I think most people would agree that they'd rather a big law job than a private equity or banking one. Most people only choose finance because it's the easier path.

^^in b4 shits storm.

Clarkey:

Why do these ass holes think they're such hot shit? They only exist because of us. I genuinely despise these scumbags.

Troll or massive 'tard

i think what clarkey wrote is mostly true. a few decades ago, the average starting corporate lawyer made as much as a public school teacher, now the differential is huge.

i mean, during the course of a deal, the lawyers are the only ppl the bankers can shit on.

its probably true that they are smarter than the avg finance person, but really, what good is intelligence that goes unused?

You should post this on JDOasis

We need to replace the whole legal system with a bunch of computers. Would move faster, be a lot less nasty, and be a lot cheaper.

There is an old saying. You bring in lawyers to stall deals and bankers to get them closed.

big law is pretty shitty too though, relative to others at that level of success in their industry. a banker or PE guy makes more than the lawyer at every stage of his career, not to mention has the benefit of having actually contributed to the deal.

if doing an excel model is boring, think about how shitty it is to go through stacks of memos for hours on end.

Naih, but those lawyer milf milfs are what some bankers thirst for.

i think criminal law would be cool, could pull alan shores all the time

id rather work for a non profit than practice law.

Lawyers always suck until you need one of them.

I don't know why there is so much hate on lawyers. Honestly, they are service providers in the same way investment bankers are. In fact, every PE guy I know rags on bankers FAR more than they rag on lawyers.

09grad is spot on that the lawyer "career progression" easily falls behind that of finance professionals. My friends who are pursuing law are just now finishing school and have their worst years ahead of them. Being an Associate at a law firm can easily last 5+ years which really, really sucks. Meanwhile, I've got many years of income and the worst working hours behind me. That said, a career in law can still be a very strong career compared to most other paths and I'd certainly be proud if I made it into Big Law.

Comp,

You also don't need to be in big law to have a fruitful career. I know a number of guys that do Criminal Litigation. I know others who built up a thriving family law practice. Law doesn't require you to have a Big Law career path. At the same time, I know a ton of bankers who have their law degrees. The career progression in every field is entirely different. Whoever brought up the surgeon reference should know that even within the career path for a surgeon, their progression, much like a lawyer's career path, is predicated on the kind of field they choose to study. It's just the way it is.

This is probably a stupid question, but what exactly is the role of a lawyer in the deal-making side, be it banking or PE? I know that they are essentially "risk managers" making sure that nothing goes awry (i.e. no anti-trust issues), but are they really just glorified paper pushers (that's what half the people on JDoasis make it seem like), or does it legitimately take a lot of thinking/business knowledge?

I'm just curious, so if anyone has good answers, please let me know.

I like lawyers much more than consultants (not saying much, I know). I respect a lot of them at least. And bankers are generally less capable professionals with bigger egos and more effete tastes in clothing.

Also, they're a lot more than just 'risk managers'. A good deal lawyer is worth his weight in gold. If you're a company that does a lot of M&A work, you could run the stuff a bank would do in-house, but you'd still have to hire law firms for most deals you do. They get involved with structuring, negotiation of SPAs, defenses, you name it.

SPA = Stock Purchase Agreement. This is basically the agreement that dictates the terms of the transaction.

What is referred to as "structuring" the deal is essentially determining the structure that will be the most beneficial to the client in terms of tax/liability protection. Some very straightforward examples include whether to structure an acquisition as a purchase of company stock or simply company assets. Also, there may be tax benefits that result from converting the acquired company into an LLC prior to the acquisition taking place. Furthermore, a private equity buyer may need to put in place a "blocker" that protects the private equity organization from additional liability. These types of issues can start to get complex very quickly and lawyers play a significant role.

Also, as mentioned above, a lawyer that understands the business issues can be very, very valuable. There is nothing more frustrating than having to have the lawyers redraft documentation because they didn't understand the issues being addressed. This results in lost time and lost money.

Agreed 100% with above. Some of the best lawyers I have worked with are very good at coming up with creative structures. They are also very good at not only pointing out what is wrong from their client's perspective with an item, but also put forth a nice compromise.

A while has passed by, and I still maintain that half these fuckers should be wiped out.

If only

So as a lawyer going into finance, should I be expecting a hostile environment?