PE associate underperformer -> considering law for stability?
I am an associate at a PE firm, making ~$300k all-in. While I’m happy with the pay, I constantly worry about job security. I’m consistently ranked in the mid-to-low bucket during annual reviews. While I don’t think I’ll be laid off, it feels impossible to make it to VP. So, I’ve been considering a pivot to law, and I was lucky to get into a T-14.
The problem is, I am pretty socially awkward and do not like navigating politics in the office. I don’t think I’d excel in law either, but being a lawyer seems to offer more stability and downside protection for underperformers like me. Here’s my thought process:
I know getting into Big Law is very difficult, and making partner is even harder. However, once you’ve built your resume with a Big Law stint, the job seems stable as long as you’re okay not making partner. Plus, with a law license, you can potentially work well into your 60s or 70s, which feels important as people live longer and don’t necessarily want to retire early.
In contrast, finance offers higher compensation and the ability to earn good money early on. But making it to MD is equally tough, and trying to find a new job at the VP or director level seems challenging. Jobs in finance aren’t protected by licenses, and during downturns, you’re more likely to be impacted than lawyers. On top of that, finding a finance job as you age seems harder.
What do you all think? Am I overthinking this? Do I need to worry about job security in law too?
flex flex-row justify-center items-center h-xl font-semibold bg-action-upvote text-global-white border-action-upvote p-0 text-12 button-secondary button-activated inline-flex button-shell overflow-visible cursor-auto mx-xs text-16">
Go back to banking?
Good lord, grow a pair
(1) Don't become a lawyer unless you actually want to be a lawyer. You don't need to end up practicing law forever (ie - Bonderman, Wasserstein, Blankfein, John Campea, etc). But you have to be genuinely interested in being a lawyer.
(2) The benefit of stability is only really for those higher performers. The "cushy BigLaw job for life" is only if you are genuinely competent.
(3) Getting a BigLaw job is categorically harder than getting into IB. Law school is 3 years compared to an undergrad's 4 years, but BigLaw's recruiting timeline is identical to IB. You interview for summer associate roles during the summer of your rising 2L year for jobs during the summer of your rising 3L year. BigLaw overwhelmingly recruits from its summer associate class for full time roles. Which means you only have 1 year of classes to get the 3.5 GPA you need like in IB to be competitive for summer associate roles in BigLaw.
And law school curves. Which is all before how law school classes are going to be fundamentally different than anything you have taken, and you won't really know if you are doing well until it is too late (70%-plus of the grade in your 1L classes will be the final).
(4) There are a number of exit opps from BigLaw. Just like with IB. However, a huge portion of those jobs are not of the type that you are thinking. Yes, there are in-house roles. But that ignores how a huge portion of exit opps are roles in the government or non-profits and gigs of that nature.
Not true, if OP goes to a T14 with good BL placement (ie. Cornell, NW, any of the T6 etc), then it’s basically guaranteed for him to get BL (when considering the BL + FC + Self Selection rate is like 80-85% at those schools). It’s much more predictable and as long as he’s not bottom 1/3 he’s going to get Biglaw
(1) "if OP goes to a T14 with good BL placement (ie. Cornell, NW, any of the T6 etc), then it’s basically guaranteed for him to get BL..."
Yes. The target/non-target school dynamics in IB pale in comparison to how they are for BigLaw. I am glad you recognize this.
(2) "It’s much more predictable and as long as he’s not bottom 1/3 he’s going to get Biglaw."
(a) This is only the case if you don't compare to the right IB comparison point. Of course, when you use apples-to-oranges groupings, you will get large differences.
(b) Like I said, it is much easier to be in the bottom 1/3 in law school at the relevant time than you are indicating.
Former lawyer here. No idea why this guy wouldn't go back into banking instead. Being a lawyer the job is overly tedious and if you have never billed time its the nail in the coffin. You would have to re-tool, take another three years off out of the workforce and pop out making less than you do now. Probably easier to go back to IBD for a few years and then move to corp-dev or to be honest moving to corp dev now. Ultimately being an MD isn't all that diffferent from being a biglaw partner given you need to bring in business in both seats and manage deal teams.
That being said on point 3., if they are (i) entering with 4 years experience at a mix of a reputable PE fund and/or a decent MM or better bank, (ii) self select for corporate, and (iii) are at a T14, class rank kind of doesn't matter if the goal is any market rate biglaw. Like maybe they aren't going to like Sull Crom or Wachtell who actually care about grades but like going to a Cadwalder or a Cahill is entirely doable being bottom 5% but with good work experience.
My old firm (vault 20 or so) would basically have no grades floor for big-4 accountants, so would basically fall out of their chair for that profile. 4 years of PE + IB tells me that you (i) actually get what is going on deal wise, (ii) can likely grind on mind-numbing bullsh**, (iii) have enough social skills to get put in front of clients / pass interviews, and (iv) likely have some level of critical thinking skills. Like that CV is basically the type of CV that would get 1st year summer associate biglaw offers which is super tough if non-DEI (and somewhat tough still then).
I agree in part with what you are saying regarding point 3. There are absolutely 100% Big Law firms that will take previous work experience, along with school, and not really care about anything else.
However, I am speaking to Big Law as a class. We can quiver over how exactly to demarcate Big Law from other law firms, but there are ~50-200 law firms in this group. Most of Big Law, and I say this personally knowing ~5 lawyers at bona fide Big Law firms who are the lawyers explicitly responsible for recruiting and having talked with them about both the formal and informal standards, does exactly what I say. Are there outliers? Yes. 100%. Absolutely.
But this is no different than in IB either. If your last name is Weinberg, there is a 100% chance that you can work at GS if you wanted to. If you have a verifiable relationship with Elon, there is a 100% chance you can get hired by MS.
There is always some company in any field that is an outlier in terms of how they recruit, and there is always some way that any given person can meet that standard. But that's not helpful advice. That's like telling someone that they should just play the Powerball if they want to develop generational wealth. Sure... it is factually accurate but that doesn't mean the IB analyst should quit their job and just buy a lot of tickets.
Question: Why do you / people in similar situations not consider sabbaticals in private credit? Obviously it's pretty braindead unless you're at one of the few opportunistic funds but couldn't really be a more similar role to what you're currently doing - you get to keep getting paid, work less and the move is highly defensible from a resume perspective... "aaah I was hearing it was the golden age of private credit and i thought it was a really unique time to get exposure to another style of investing but after a year I decided PE is where I wanted to be"
Not saying this is universally attractive but whenever I see these "PE isn't for me posts" people are talking about switching out of finance entirely or taking their own life as opposed to a much more lateral role that, unlike PE, is hiring out the ass
Golden age was 5 years ago lil bro. Gone downhill from then
If you’re burned out by PE hours and lifestyle, Big Law is more of the same and you’re having to pay for law school on top of that. Seems like Private Credit, corp dev, or even gigs like FP&A or PWM would be better bets
All the roles you listed have extreme paycuts. Not livable wage in NYC
Yes, but you don't have to live in NYC. I found living in Texas to be a lot more manageable than NYC/LA.
i left PE making $330k and now in strategic finance making $270k
How much of a pay cut is private credit?
Being a low performer in any job is not fun and not worthwhile. If social awkwardness is the issue, there is coaching for that and business school will help too.
i can not think of a worse job than big law associate.
as someone that works with big law associates on a daily basis, i agree
yr not special for this
TO give a more serious answer, if you have decent business acumen and likes pumping out models and not terrible with numbers, you shouldn't go into law.
But if you like surrounding yourself with investment professionals or corporate heads and enjoy peering into documents but unwilling to get your hands dirty in the minute details of a deal, then go into law. Simple as that
Brother, are you out of your mind?
Voluptatem non velit harum accusamus aut. Explicabo assumenda commodi distinctio ut. Sunt laborum veniam itaque nihil qui asperiores. Ea voluptatem doloribus eligendi est. Ipsum minus reiciendis cupiditate qui.
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...
Facilis voluptatibus nesciunt veritatis qui nobis. Corporis eos eum reprehenderit consequatur dolore. Beatae soluta ut debitis amet rerum autem. Laborum exercitationem sunt eos voluptatum. Quia unde ut iure distinctio corrupti facere similique et. Nihil sed sit in repellendus nulla similique nam.
Aliquid eum pariatur sunt. Ut ut ullam sequi. Nobis ea consequatur quia iusto quaerat libero. Ratione ipsa veniam corporis quis.