I've seen some profiles on LinkedIn of guys from GS/JPM/MS IB which ended getting into biglaw. For those of you which may suit this category, why? And for those of you which not, how would you rationalize such move?
People don’t go IB to BigLaw. They go BigLaw to IB, usually with a JD/MBA.
"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
Have seen a few people who absolutely hated finance go back to law school after a year. Honestly I think part of it is these people felt comfortable in school and law school is another prestigious ladder to climb. Biglaw is just as bad as finance, even worse to some degree because you have so much debt/opportunity cost from school and the exits pay poorly.
"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
Sorry I meant exits from biglaw pay poorly - if you want to work lower hours there's not a huge universe of opportunities that still pay decently like there is in finance
Oh ok I get what you’re saying. Although most big companies (non-law firms) have legal teams that need general counsel. The hours are lighter.
In general though law is incredibly boring.
"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
I think the traditional law JOBS are boring but the law is actually fascinating because it's all about ambiguity. Just like markets.
So in law jobs maybe you find them to be 20% fascinating and 80% boring.
"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
I think the traditional law JOBS are boring but the law is actually fascinating because it's all about ambiguity. Just like markets.
You're a retard. Almost nothing in law is ambiguous. Transactional attorneys are scribes who paper deals. Litigators engage in flooding opposing counsels with discovery requests and mountains of paperwork. Most of it is pretty rote and clear cut. I mean, M&A law has largely been settled since the 80s, which is why lawyers aren't lead advisors by any stretch
former corporate lawyer
Just the idea that your best argument is that I’m a retard says all I need to know.
I think the traditional law JOBS are boring but the law is actually fascinating because it's all about ambiguity. Just like markets.
You're a retard. Almost nothing in law is ambiguous. Transactional attorneys are scribes who paper deals. Litigators engage in flooding opposing counsels with discovery requests and mountains of paperwork. Most of it is pretty rote and clear cut. I mean, M&A law has largely been settled since the 80s, which is why lawyers aren't lead advisors by any stretch
former corporate lawyer
Also, you’re missing the point which is that the JOBS are boring. But the ambiguity of the law itself is fascinating.
What do you mean "ambiguity"? It is extremely clear cut. You seem like one of those "men" who wear notorious RBG shirts and think Sotomayor knows how to read. Stop fetishizing "law"
Pick your poison: Patent cases. Cases over failed m&a. Whatever. If there is risk that the market doesn’t understand how to price, there is an opportunity to make p&l in markets. That’s what I love.
If you want to try to tell me or anyone else on here that all of those cases price at 100% certainty or that markets are perfectly efficient, feel free.
but I’m saying as someone who never attended one minute of law school, they there is a a whole lotta money to be made by assessing risk others can’t understand and legal matters can be one type of that risk.
You can disagree but that doesn’t matter to me. I’m perfectly happy with as many people being oblivious / ignorant as want to be.
Voluptates unde aut accusamus. Laborum qui tenetur est tempore illum labore animi. Corporis quis voluptate voluptatem. Est assumenda dolorem quo fuga aut. Sed consequatur deserunt doloremque aut quo.
Nobis harum aspernatur consequatur vitae ea nulla facere. Quos expedita cupiditate iusto ex quis. Aut odio doloribus hic quia voluptas. Similique reiciendis est tempora rerum maiores.
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)
Sorry, you need to login or sign up in order to vote. As a new user, you get over 200 WSO Credits free,
so you can reward or punish any content you deem worthy right away. See you on the other side!
People don’t go IB to BigLaw. They go BigLaw to IB, usually with a JD/MBA.
It’s less common but that’s because
a) few ppl want to back to law school (those who don’t have law degrees)
b) banking is similar / better comp with some light and the end of the tunnel on lifestyle.
Have seen a few people who absolutely hated finance go back to law school after a year. Honestly I think part of it is these people felt comfortable in school and law school is another prestigious ladder to climb. Biglaw is just as bad as finance, even worse to some degree because you have so much debt/opportunity cost from school and the exits pay poorly.
They start at $215K+
Sorry I meant exits from biglaw pay poorly - if you want to work lower hours there's not a huge universe of opportunities that still pay decently like there is in finance
Oh ok I get what you’re saying. Although most big companies (non-law firms) have legal teams that need general counsel. The hours are lighter.
In general though law is incredibly boring.
I would disagree. I’m not a lawyer.
I think the traditional law JOBS are boring but the law is actually fascinating because it’s all about ambiguity. Just like markets.
So in law jobs maybe you find them to be 20% fascinating and 80% boring.
Just the idea that your best argument is that I’m a retard says all I need to know.
Also, you’re missing the point which is that the JOBS are boring. But the ambiguity of the law itself is fascinating.
Pick your poison: Patent cases. Cases over failed m&a. Whatever. If there is risk that the market doesn’t understand how to price, there is an opportunity to make p&l in markets. That’s what I love.
If you want to try to tell me or anyone else on here that all of those cases price at 100% certainty or that markets are perfectly efficient, feel free.
but I’m saying as someone who never attended one minute of law school, they there is a a whole lotta money to be made by assessing risk others can’t understand and legal matters can be one type of that risk.
You can disagree but that doesn’t matter to me. I’m perfectly happy with as many people being oblivious / ignorant as want to be.
Voluptates unde aut accusamus. Laborum qui tenetur est tempore illum labore animi. Corporis quis voluptate voluptatem. Est assumenda dolorem quo fuga aut. Sed consequatur deserunt doloremque aut quo.
Nobis harum aspernatur consequatur vitae ea nulla facere. Quos expedita cupiditate iusto ex quis. Aut odio doloribus hic quia voluptas. Similique reiciendis est tempora rerum maiores.
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...