Comments (42)

  • Analyst 1 in IB-M&A
2y 

This thread again? Just use the search

  • 7
  • 1
  • Prospect in IB - Gen
2y 

More than just M&A lawyers out there

  • Analyst 3+ in IB-M&A
2y 

Who really is superior?

Bankers

Who wins out?

Bankers

Exit opps?

Bankers

Comp?

Bankers, Bankers, Bankers - lawyers enjoy high starting salary, growth of which flattens out over time, whereas bankers.. we all know

Work/Life Balance?

Lawyers probably

Level of intellectually engaging work?

Neither

  • 4
  • 1
Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
Funniest
  • Analyst 1 in IB-M&A
2y 

Asking in the banking forum to get totally unbiased opinions 

  • 17
2y 
prestigewhore101, what's your opinion? Comment below:

might be because you need this thing called a law degree to be a lawyer, but you don't need a banking degree to be a banker..

Array

  • 4
2y 
Bullet-Tooth Tony, what's your opinion? Comment below:

BallsOnChinBoy

See plenty of former lawyers in banking. Never heard of a banker going into law.

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/X6lrsqspAJIcybTo9L" width="480" height="269" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-mood-X6lrsqspAJIcybTo9L">via GIPHY</a></p>

2y 
Billion with a B, what's your opinion? Comment below:

BallsOnChinBoy

See plenty of former lawyers in banking. Never heard of a banker going into law.

That might have something to do with a 3 year degree as a prerequisite to law and a crushing exam to be registered, versus basically a 0 level bar for entry into banking except good track record in current employment.

2y 
Pedro_the_lion, what's your opinion? Comment below:

As 3L law student at T6 Law school going straight into banking - if on corporate side, banking by a mile, unless you really like tax law, which is the only place (besides bankruptcy) where I think lawyers really command lots of respect and where parties ignore their counsel at their own peril. But have you tried reading the tax code? I'd rather light myself on fire then try and master that language, only to have it change with a new Administration. 

Litigation is totally different. But even here, caveats apply: You need to go to a T6 law school, get a clerkship at a good District Court and/or Appeals Court, and then spend a few years at a BigLaw firm paying down the debt --> then you have some really great options: 1) boutique law firm doing specialist litigation; 2) public interest law litigating matters you care about (e.g. election law, consumer protection, privacy, free speech, etc); 3) Fed. job as prosecutor w/ DOJ, SEC, IRS, CFPB, etc.; 4) DAs office; 5) any number of public policy jobs; 6) academia.

Note: It is difficult to get good grades at a top law school and it is ridiculously competitive to get good clerkships (unless you're at Yale Law School, but then, you have to get into YLS). Also, you better KNOW you like litigation, because fighting it out for years doing filings and dealing with opposing counsel can be absolutely soul crushing. 

2y 
Pedro_the_lion, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I'll be at an EB. Why banking over law? In a word, optionality. Exit options for corporate lawyers in big law = in house counsel. That's pretty much all you can do (or at least, it is much, much more difficult to do other things). Whereas banking allows much more long-term flexibility. I can pursue many different types of roles within the finance industry or I can pursue a plethora of roles in any industry that is broadly "business" or "finance" related. Plus, although law school is very intellectually stimulating, the actual practice of law, particularly corporate law, is not very stimulating. 

  • 2
2y 
earlysummer, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Why do you think tax lawyers command a lot of respect? Is it just because the tax code is so complicated and you need a specialist to help decipher, or do tax lawyers actually provide value in a transaction (e.g., by devising a tax-efficient structure)? 

2y 
Lester Diamond, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Law just seems less lucrative considering the 3 extra years you would spend at law school, potentially going -$300k for school and call it $400k foregone earnings if you were in IB. We are already at a $700k differential. Law school is also hard. Compared to business school it seems a lot more time-consuming. Not going to comment on the intangibles, but I think what I said is pretty significant. 

  • Anonymous Monkey's picture
  • Anonymous Monkey
  • Rank: Chimp
2y 
Anonymous Monkey, what's your opinion? Comment below:

who really is superior?

onlyfans thot

Who wins out?

onlyfans thot

Exit opps?

onlyfans thot

Comp?

onlyfans thot

Work/Life Balance?

onlyfans thot

Level of intellectually engaging work?

bankers

  • Prospect in IB-M&A
2y 

Elaborate on the exit opps?

Most Helpful
  • Prospect in IB-M&A
2y 

It's a trick question, monkeys. Neither of you create value in this society: you're not creating any new inventions, penning new ways of thinking, starting companies/businesses, or new technology/processes to create societal wealth. Both bankers and lawyers work eerily long hours to do mundane, mechanical tasks that require little to no intellectual firepower. Why do you think w'ere all called monkeys? Banking and law are what young, high-achieving graduates do because the have no idea what to do with their lives. Think about it - the reason you went into banking or law is probably so you can have as many options as possible, exactly how you put together a bewilderingly diverse resumé of extracurriculars in high school to get access to as many elite colleges as possible. You're simply playing that game of hedging your bets for your long-term career yet again, except during college this time. But but here's the catch:

Being in banking or law doesn't give you any special talent or value at all. You don't become an asset to anyone. Why? Because you don't have a real skill like programming, writing, or something that translates into creating new ideas, wealth, or improving business processes. You don't have a talent that say, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, or Larry Page might have had. All you learn is how to build models, create pitchbooks, prepare materials, and get the higher-ups coffee. You don't have any real talent here. You just don't know how to create new, exciting things, and you'll never learn it in banking or law, to be quite frank.

The job of bankers is to restructure and play around with wealth (aka companies) that's already been created by thought leaders and entrepreneurs (which, by the way, will be exponentially richer than any MD at a BB or Partner at a white-shoe). The job of lawyers is to resolve disputes over old things, intervene in and structure peoples' affairs, and cover others asses through arcane legal loopholes. None of these jobs bring new ideas and wealth to society, and neither do the skillsets you're equipped with have ANY CONTEXT OR RELEVANCE OUTSIDE OF WALL STREET. You really think that as an ex-banker/lawyer, you'll know how to operationally add value to a company later on when you exit? You've never started/ran a company before or stepped foot into real operations. You do grunt work for a living. Stop kidding yourself.

This is exactly why the US went from one of the greatest innovators of the world during 1950-80 to China's bitch nowadays as the Chinese innovate us away. From 1950-1980s, we were dreaming big! We went to the moon, created Silicon Valley and Moore's Law, and our increased productivity drove an industrial revolution with new technology.

Enter high finance in the 1980s. Wall Street eclipses engineering as the way to approach the future. Americans stopped looking at technology as the primary way of moving the world forward and started looking at finance. Wall Street boomed and everybody moved over to it. Instead of taking real personal risks to build the future, they put their money in "safe" things like investments. But what were they going to do with that money from investments? Build new things? Donate to charities? Improve education? Nah...just invest it more and make more money! All until you die a cold death with a fat trust fund sitting for your kids and an unhappy family, only for the cycle to repeat and repeat, that money never being realized into true wealth for society.

At the end of the day, finance and law are the only ways to make money when you have absolutely no idea how to build real wealth. Bright college graduates head to Wall Street hoping to stumble upon a great path: what could be a better reward after years of resume-building than an "elite," process-oriented career that promises to "keep options open"? By contrast, a true boss - a wealth builder (think entrepreneur, scientist, author or innovator) - determines the best thing to do and then does it. Instead of working tirelessly for prestige and to keep options open, he strives to be great at something substantiative, making him an asset, and allowing him to own assets that will always create new wealth for him over time: majority ownership of a cash-flow generating company, royalties to a publication/academic work, etc.

Let me just put it simply - do you want to just sit in the corner and watch from a distance as someone else fucks that hot chick, or do you want to be the one doing the real fucking, the real boss business of starting new companies? Answer that, and you'll have a better idea of what's next for you monkeys.

  • 15
  • 2
2y 
calvincoolridge, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Was feeling this post until you mentioned China innovating better than usa now.  If by innovation you mean copying ip and cheating on college entrance exams en masse than sure.  China hasn't created anything new or exciting in tech.  Thats still happening in the usa.  

Array
  • 2
  • 1
2y 
Bullet-Tooth Tony, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Nemo quam placeat ut ullam facere suscipit velit quas. Veritatis earum esse ratione ipsam quia recusandae. Dolorem ullam qui quaerat quisquam dolorem fugiat amet. Sed quis sed sunt minus nulla.

Start Discussion

Popular Content See all

Career Advancement Opportunities

February 2023 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres (+ +) 99.5%
  • Jefferies & Company (▽01) 99.1%
  • Lincoln International (▽01) 98.6%
  • Financial Technology Partners (▽01) 98.1%
  • William Blair (▲08) 97.7%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

February 2023 Investment Banking

  • Canaccord Genuity (▲04) 99.5%
  • William Blair (▲04) 99.0%
  • Lincoln International (▲09) 98.6%
  • Jefferies & Company (▲06) 98.1%
  • Financial Technology Partners (▲09) 97.6%

Professional Growth Opportunities

February 2023 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres (▲15) 99.5%
  • Financial Technology Partners (▲09) 99.1%
  • Lincoln International (= =) 98.6%
  • Jefferies & Company (▽03) 98.1%
  • William Blair (▲01) 97.7%

Total Avg Compensation

February 2023 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (6) $592
  • Vice President (24) $418
  • Associates (137) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (9) $194
  • 2nd Year Analyst (80) $172
  • 1st Year Analyst (258) $171
  • Intern/Summer Associate (42) $166
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (185) $91