Law School is The New Business School
Hey Monkeys - Steve here,
I think the heading is pretty self explanatory. If you’re going to be a partner in PE, I think it’s critical that you get a law degree vs an MBA. Three reasons:
1. Rule of Law: as you rise the ranks, thinking like a lawyer is actually useful. It helps you think about the art of possible in complex situations and gives you a differentiated skill set that people just don’t have
2. Who Cares: Who cares about an MBA, you literally learn nothing. Which leads me to
3. if you ever want to start your company, a law degree would actually be very helpful whereas an MBA is entirely useless
Thoughts?
Why would I study 3 years a dense curriculum when only 2 or 3 law courses may be relevant for finance?
There is a bit of truth in what you say. Many PE founders in the past were ex-lawyers, however, times have changed. Now finance is pretty institutionalized. There is a desired background. Good luck coming out of law school trying to recruit for finance roles.
More so, at 25/26 years old when you finish law school, you come up in the real world without experience. Your business peer at 25/26 year olds may be on track for VP at an IB or at a PE fund already working and learning the ropes that - presumably - you think you understand them better because you went to law school instead of being there and watching how the cooking is done.
It's maybe fun and somehow helpful long-term? Yes. It's needed? Definitely not. If you're comfortable burning cash for a JD and losing the opportunity cost of the degree: Savings, investments, knowledge, and skills. Good for you, go for it. But this is a dangerous advice.
And a law degree is not an alternative to an MBA. A law degree is like a continuation of the undegraduate. The MBA has a totally different purpose and requires some years of work experience, which also may underline the idea that for those who already had contact with the professional world, the value of what's taught in academia is useless, so that's why the "curriculum" feels more relaxed.
edit: if you're curious why many PE funds were founded by ex-lawyers it's because PE funds were employing bespoke deal structures with huge implications on corporate governance which at that time was something extremely new and not properly understood. Until that point finance was pretty boring: Lending or being a stock runner, so being a lawyer meant you had an edge in: 1) negotiations, 2) thinking about how to put into a contract those transactions (this is still delegated to law firms nowadays), 3) understand specific elements on corporate governance. Now, all of that is quite standardized, everybody knows it, even a UG student has an idea about it because of his corporate finance classes.
Dual JD / MBA programs exist and seem to be a better option. However if you work the standard path, maybe not. I hesitate when I read your comment because you talk with such a degree of certainty I find off-putting. Example: I work in RX. I will work at a credit HF soon. Then I want to pursue a JD / MBA and start my own micro market distressed real estate fund, and you are insinuating law school makes no sense? Contract law? Tort liability? Etc? Point is, it's a tough question because it is so dependent on what you personally want to do.
Dual is a worse option for the points above. You are spending more time and more money when ultimately as you say you have to decide what you want to do. Do you want to be a lawyer or a business person.
i'm a JD/ex-lawyer, so i may know 1 or 2 things. unless you want to do litigation finance, you're losing time
While I generally agree, I do think there is some additional context that may be useful.
(1) "Why would I study 3 years a dense curriculum when only 2 or 3 law courses may be relevant for finance?"
While generally true, specific schools can pretty much enable you to take what is basically two years of finance-related classes. This is very school specific, but there are absolutely law schools (whose business schools are targets and semi-targets for finance) that can get you a significant number of finance-related classes. And this is before how many law schools allow you to take up to a certain number of classes in other fields and how classes can be jointly listed between law school and the business school.
We can use my alma mater, UW, as an example. From the actual law school classes to the classes that were co-listed with the business school to the classes I was able to take outside the law school, 40% of my classes were finance related. Now, some like Commercial Real Estate Development or Securities Law was much more finance-related than something like Business Organizations, but you CAN have a not insignificant number of classes that are relevant for finance IF YOU CHOOSE TO.
The thing is, you have to be far more pro-active if you want a more finance-related legal education. A lot of the "standard" classes are not that. But many law schools offer plenty of options if you want to seek it out.
(2) "Many PE founders in the past were ex-lawyers, however, times have changed."
There is an element of truth to this, but it is also more complicated. Some of this is perception is due to the fact that many of the largest funds are massive. You just aren't going to get many recently started PE firms to get to that size which is biasing things. Part of this is also survivorship bias. We remember George Roberts and Bonderman because KKR and TPG are at the top of the game. We don't remember all of the lawyers who ever entered PE and crash and burned. We don't remember all of the lawyers who entered PE and were just mid. There is an element of rose-colored glasses in this sentiment.
(3) "Now finance is pretty institutionalized. There is a desired background. Good luck coming out of law school trying to recruit for finance roles."
There absolutely is a desired background.
But depending on what you did before law school, you can fit functionally all of those requirements. For example, if you got a finance degree in undergrad, interned at a hedge fund and in corp dev at a mid-cap industrials company, went to a law school that had a semi-target business school, interned in law school in finance related functions (ie - as a corporate associate, in the tax departments of the Big 4, etc), worked in the corporate law clinic, and used the business school's IB/PE/VC/etc recruiting infrastructure, you will be very competitive.
The point being, yes. Law school is absolutely NOT part of "The Path" that is standard for getting finance roles. However, as a general matter, you get basically one "step off" The Path before it materially impacts your ability to get the job. Going to law school is that one step. Yes, you need to be "perfect" in every other way, but going to law school won't keep you from getting AN IB/PE/VC/etc job in and of itself.
(edit made for spelling)
become a lobbist / litigator
you may like it
Disagree with this as an associate in Rx. Even though the work has a “legal” tilt, it is still very much an apprentice based model. Even for the JDs that we hire, most of the legal aspect is still learned on the job.
In my view, you definitely need the JD for big law, constitutional law, etc but really not necessary for finance nowadays.
What are your thoughts on JD/MBA
Underlooked aspect is the implication of AI on the job market. I see AI playing out three ways:
All those point to law school likely being one of the best options
Worst case: AI somehow flops and progress is halted here. Massive consolidation in finance will still eventually occur. This will lead to a domino effect with most of the supporting players involved.
A very likely scenario is that AI will approach that of ASI or at least a level below within 1-10 years. This is when the system can outperform all or most humans intellectually in ALL tasks across multiple domains.
Self-iteration will ensure that it all gets worse from there
How familiar are you with the history of AI (I ask as a very leading question)?
Soluta iure sequi ut qui. Autem ut iusto earum aut illum commodi. Qui sapiente sit non omnis vel quia.
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...