Law school instead of MBA?
We’re all familiar with the 2+2+2 (IB analyst + PE asso + MBA) and then back to PE as a VP. Is it totally unreasonable to do 2+2 and then Law school to PE VP? Will I get VP PE looks if I go to law school? An MBA seems like a complete waste of time seeing the skill set our IB MBA assos are equipped with (except for the network building aspect, and being able to take a mental vacation for two years), and law school seems much more interesting to me. However, I have no interest in being a lawyer. Thoughts?
bump v good question. interested as well,
Bump
No - bad idea. Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer.
I've seen worse ideas like going to medical school just to do biotech HF Edit: what I meant is people posting on WSO about their plan of chasing med school admission being to do HF (of course, it's always okay to try something else after being a doctor who originally wanted medicine when going in)!
my HF invests in biotech/healthtech and one of the founders actually has a phd in biochem, granted they also have top tier mba+finance exp
Seen a ton of lawyers who are MP of PE firms, actually a good skill if you have transaction experience on the law side...
Sure but the barrier to entry when they got in the industry was fuck-all compared to today's competition.
No idea if it's a feasible path, however you would have to be a masochist to choose law school over MBA if your end goal is PE. It is harder and worse than you think it is. It's also one extra year of opportunity cost which is immense if your target is PE post-grad school. Last, the recruiting would be more difficult and would require much more effort on your part to get in front of recruiters.
If I have a good firm for PE asso and IB analyst on my resume, you really think it would be difficult to get in front of recruiters for VP roles?
I think once the recruiter sees your resume, yes they will strongly consider you. It's getting in front of the recruiters in the first place. PE firms will be recruiting on campus at the top MBA programs. They won't be sending anyone to your law school.
Terrible idea, PE firms will not recruit from law school. If you can do a JD/MBA, fine, but if it’s just JD vs MBA, do the MBA.
I’ve never heard of that combo. Seems like a lot of work and money to pull that off, but definitely something to consider
It’s a very common joint degree. Yes, it is extremely expensive and I would still say just get the MBA to anyone considering it
OP here. Obviously PE firms won’t do on-campus recruiting at law schools (tbh I don’t even know if they do this for VP roles at target MBA schools, given there are likely very few seats at any given firm). I’m no stranger to being outside of the target recruiting pipeline (went to a non-target and at an EB now). Some of my co-workers who have MBAs have told me that I won’t really gain much from an MBA based on my IB experience thus far…I kind of agree outside the network and mental break. I’ve noticed the importance of understanding legal docs (in order to avoid getting screwed over in many cases) in my current roll, and feel like that would be much more additive to my skill set as a VP in PE than the network I’d build in my MBA class. Especially with many firms allowing direct promote from associate to VP, is it more of a neutral thing if I went to law school vs a positive if I did an MBA? Or do you think I’d get dinged because of law school?
Again - no point in getting a JD. You will not get a job in PE unless you do a joint degree. And that PE job would’ve taken you with or without a JD. Law school has almost nothing to do with practical corporate finance law. It won’t be additive.
if you actually want to be a lawyer, do con law, be a judge someday - go to law school. Going to law school to get into PE is like going to a steak house and ordering sushi.
I guess it’s not as much that I think it would be super additive to a role in PE, but I think it would be super interesting to learn the content and take a short break from finance around the clock
You sound like you might actually enjoy law. If so - figure out if that’s true and you can decide to go to law school. Just don’t do it hoping / expecting to get back into PE.
I'll reiterate the above points for the edification of you / those who requested bumps. Not only is law school not super additive, it's really not additive at all. Any consequential legal question would be run through a legal professional. Lawyers are expensive, but on a 9/10 figure acquisition, a few extra hours of legal counsel is a drop in the bucket. No partner is going to suggest running legal questions through an associate with a law degree who has never practiced law a day in his life. And yes, this applies to more legal-heavy strategies like distressed as well. The obvious problem with the plan is the cost-- the explicit tuition costs + opportunity cost of lost earnings. If you're paying out of pocket yourself or going into debt just to learn something for fun, that's probably not a good idea financially. If money is not an issue (scholarships / deep pockets to the point that a few hundred grand present value won't make a difference in your life) and you don't mind spending hours a day writing papers and reading case texts, then that's your prerogative. If your goal is to learn something new and take a break from work, there are much cheaper ways to do that. You can learn a lot of what they teach in law school by just finding syllabi of interesting classes and reading the textbooks / cases from the class. That will teach out like 70% of what they teach in law school for a fraction of the time and expense. If you're really motivated and willing to spend a little $, look into online masters in legal studies programs. Those programs don't allow you to take the bar exam, but that shouldn't be an issue since you don't want to practice. Just some ideas as this was an idea that I looked into a few years ago with the same thought-- I was interested in the legal side but had no interest in being a lawyer, so I did a bit of self study. There used to be a lawyer on this site (now banned) who would loathed law school and would have written an entire supreme court opinion on why this is a bad idea haha, take that as you will
Have weirdly had a few buddies do or attempt this. Your path will be exponentially easier if you do a dual degree program because PE firms operate off of heuristics (ooh, MBA shiny) more than horsepower. If for whatever reason you only get the JD, in one of your two summers (at least), try like hell to nab one of those summer VP spots that's usually reserved for those without prior PE experience like military folk; yes, it's a step "down" but worst case shows you're not pivoting away from finance and best case gets you a return offer full-time.
If the market was what it was in 2021 or 2019, I would give a less cautious recommendation because every swinging dick was getting a PE offer in the lateral / post-MBA market as long as they weren't too picky about fund size. Today, and for the past full two years at this point, you have BX -> KKR -> HBS kids crying into their drinks because of how shitty the VP market is. Don't do anything that jeopardizes your chances of getting looks, unless actually studying, and maybe working in, the law means that much to you.
Is summer PE VP a common role? Like most PE associates that are getting an MBA do summer VP internship?
It is not. Most PE MBAs have pre-MBA PE, so they have fun with public markets or some startup or bus dev somewhere for their summer. But they don’t have to prove they still love the game when they recruit post-MBA.
If you think an MBA is a waste of time, a law degree wastes even more time and is not necessary at all in finance. In fact, even some of the best restructuring guys who know the docs cold have nothing but undergrad degrees and they tell the lawyers what to do 98% of the time.
Do it if you find law inherently interesting. if you want to specialize in healthcare PE in the future it might also add some value
I worked as a lawyer some years. Law school is interesting, more than finance, but in practice - unless you do litigation - the most you need is to read some commented SPAs, Credit Agreements, and NDAs, and that's it. Truth be told, the theory of law school doesn't prepare you to work with real agreements unless, again, you step into the litigation side.
I feel sorry for extremely birght legal minds that went to Harvard/Yale and sit proofreading 200-pages agreements and sending redlines to Partners. Sometimes it even made me question if law school is really worth it for corporate law.
hey man, what type of law did you practice? Starting law school next fall and hoping to be an rx lawyer. I would be interested to learn more about your opinions and why you left.
Pure M&A. I left it because I'm extremely goal-oriented and I saw no purpose on billing 3000+ hours per year. In banking at least I can day dream about some potential entrepreneurial venues (co-investing, CFO for middle firms, sitting on some boards before retiring, etc.) - I still have a long road - so it keeps me "entertained" thinking that I can do other things in my professional life that seem fun.
If you're thinking about bankruptcy, then you're good - no need to even get tempted on moving to finance. As a Kirkland Bx lawyer you'll be at the same level as Moelis/PJT/Houlihan bankers involved in the deal. It's not the same as in corporate/M&A where you only get to see the SPA and have no clue about the entire "cooking" that went before getting to draft the SPA.
The only plausible differnce I can trace between Bx lawyers and bankers is that bankers get involved for a shorter period in the bx/rx process, meaning that after everybody agreed with the restructuring, the bankers move with the next deals, meanwhile as a bx lawyer you may be "stuck" more in the process because you then need to draft the whole set of documents that will go to the court, all parties, etc. Nothing bad per se, just an observation.
In my opinion bx is the most interesting type of work on the legal side if you like finance because it has more room to maneuver with the law, so it can be more intellectual than M&A. There are people that live and breath bankruptcy i.e. lawyers/bankers/consultants, so this also tells u smth about how interesting is the field. If you're also confrontational/enjoy stressful negotiations, then more points to u - u'll be a top bx lawyer.
You could probably exit also to distressed debt, but shouldn't be your main decision factor.
A few things as someone who is a lawyer that is now in a finance job.
(1) As someone else already mentioned, you won't be practicing law in PE. You will still be running everything by lawyers. But, depending on the industry, having legal training is beneficial even if it isn't necessary or critical.
(2) There are genuine soft skills you can learn in law school that would be helpful. Law school pretty much teaches you two things (other than how to have a high tolerance for self-harm): how to read and how to write. These are two important parts of doing deals. Law school will make you better at this if you take the education seriously. Now, is that worth the cost? That's for you to decide.
(3) Recruiting should not be much of a concern. Obviously, this depends on your school, but you can get into the recruiting pipeline fairly easily. For example, if you get into Indiana's law school, you can swerve into their finance recruiting pipeline. You will just be viewed as another "non-finance major trying to get into finance" type. Given the MBA recruiting structures and timelines, you will have to be much more proactive than if you just did an MBA. You will also need to be able to sufficiently articulate why law school.
You will have the opportunities. You will just have to be a lot better and more proactive in taking advantage of them.
(4) Don't go to law school if you are not at least interested in practicing law.
man I see you commenting on every law-related topic and it's always 100% negative lmao
give poor JDs a break
Why was there a trend in the 80s and 90s to get a JD in business and why do you think it had phased out over time? Genuinely curious.
I turned down mm ib to go to law school. I want to be a lawyer and I don't think in this day and age law is as versatile as it once was like back in the 80s90s. the only non lawyer reason to go to law school is politics.
Why and in what way was law more versatile in the 80s?
for me it seemed the best path. It was LMM ib and below street pay to begin with and I'll get good money off for law school. I want to practice rx law and I believe I will really enjoy it. Career earnings I think Ill significantly out pace what I would have made in IB and i believe ill enjoy the work more at a senior level. I also wasn't to interested in PE and HF exits. I like the idea of credit funds, and distressed debt investing and this path still leaves that door open down the line in some capacity. also non target undergrad and did well on lsat. Going to my top choice in a great city to be a 22-25 year old. I was also gonna get an mba eventually so I am not worried about overall opprunoity cost of missing those three years of working as a PE guy going to mba is probably missing out on 250-400k per year of opportunity cost for two years and law school for three years for the 85k salary pre bonus I would have got in lmm ib is significantly less. Goal is big law rx and craveth scale salary is pretty nice. Maybe down the line the hours could get to me but would of had the same issues in ib
Bump
man.. I wish someone would invent the WSO of law... we should call it jdoasis. ;)
(I wonder why that one didn't take off)
the one area where being a lawyer or legal experience is an advantage is venture capital (and in the wider sense - PE).
term sheets/ how you structure the deal and the amount of legal contacts you work with on a daily basis
Don't VC firms bring in external lawyers to structure the term sheets? Does a law degree help in the context of being an actual investor in the venture space?
One guy who works with us is a former commercial lawyer (big law) and is now in VC. He knows a lot. The investment experience can be learned as well.
there is top law schools forum (google this), but it looks dry and boring, as an usual forum for lawyers, so JDOasis would be more "fratty" - I sign
But I mean, even then, as a venture capital / startup lawyer, you'll probably be more on an angel investor role because that's where you knowledge will become more useful vs. being in a startup and dealing with a structuring/selling a stake only 1 or 2 times in years, and the rest of it focusing on product/services/whatever your startup aims to build.
did the WSO team ever tell us why JDOasis failed?
If you can tolerate it, do both - JD + MBA combined program at a top school. The most lucrative outcome in my graduating class did that.
my pockets don't tolerate it ;(
What was the outcome?
At my business school MBA students could get into some classes in the law school (e.g., those oriented around M&A / purchase agreements). So you could just enroll in an MBA program and supplement with a couple classes from the law school that would be relevant to your job as a PE investor.
Have a JD/MBA. Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. Professional school is almost never about learning the subject matter, but rather about getting to the career you want, where you actually learn the subject matter. So, with that rationale in mind:
Is that really worth 3 years of lost earnings, a way off-track profile, a peer network that you'll have little use for (beyond a little bit of proprietary deal sourcing if you go to LMM or MM), and a few hundred thousand dollars of expenses? Oh and a license that don't intend to use (but may have to use if you can only get law jobs).
Oh and some here may ask if the JD/MBA is worth it. In short, it was for me because I had a lib arts and policy background. I needed to totally revamp my profile to get a decent job. You do not, so my personal rationale does not apply.
Not worth it at all… only do law school if you want to be a lawyer. An mba is more relevant and fun!
why is law considered "girly" ?
FWIW, i used to work at a rx group as an analyst, and i asked my ED (ex-lawyer) whether i should pursue JD-MBA in a few years since i wanted to stay in the rx/distressed world. He said that i was stupid and had too much capacity and ordered me to finish the slides that he gave me.
In seriousness, he said I would learn way more about distress/rx by actually working in the industry than going to school. Same logic applies to everything - you learn way more about it through actual work and repetition than studying it in a classroom.
Go to law school to be a lawyer. Law schools mainly offer clerkships or big law firm jobs—PE firms don’t recruit there.
An MBA is better for career changes in business, and PE firms do recruit from top MBA programs (though the path is smaller than consulting or IB).
If you want PE, pick a business school where they recruit or where PE firms have alumni. You won’t find that at law school.
“Tell me you’re a sheep without saying you’re a sheep”…
lol Just kidding. I work with a bunch of lawyers every day and here’s the bottom line: if every fiber of you’re being isn’t screaming to do law, and you feel like you’ll suffocate unless you become a lawyer, don’t do law school.
MBA opens up (and keeps open) so many more paths. You sound like you still need some time to figure exactly what you want to do, exploration that an MBA can give you the flexibility to do. You DO NOT want to go to law school without 1000% confidence and certainty that it’s right for you. Dodge the law bullet and go business.
Architecto sed dicta quos magni assumenda eaque aspernatur. Autem rem illo voluptatem veniam voluptatem aut dolore odio. Quisquam illum exercitationem assumenda vitae praesentium aut delectus omnis.
Sed neque doloremque quisquam explicabo esse quae. Et sit omnis dolorem quas.
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...
Doloremque quos earum ut enim et iure molestiae enim. Aut et dolor quis.
Deserunt consequatur voluptate quas omnis voluptatibus sit eligendi. Amet consequatur quia quos architecto non. Consequatur aspernatur quia et voluptate et nihil. Quisquam quod quia voluptas id fugit eum ab. Pariatur ut maiores unde labore veniam quidem nihil. Consequatur nemo aliquam quo et sit aut.
Modi ullam mollitia suscipit consequuntur atque ullam laborum reiciendis. Consequatur voluptate quis dolor ratione minima odio asperiores.
Omnis est cum enim ducimus ratione. Odio quod expedita reiciendis ab tempore sit. Eum recusandae cumque rerum cum quia dignissimos voluptate aut. Quia dicta consequatur eos numquam quaerat inventore cumque rerum.