Activism defense - law vs banking which is better?

There's a few threads on here about law vs banking, they aren't specific to shareholder activism but worth a read

Banking pulls the most weight in this area because takeovers or defense rely less on contracts and are really a matter of negotiating conditions, price, trying to influence proxy votes, etc. Lawyers formalize the paperwork but they aren't the ones negotiating terms with the client. Restructuring is an area where lawyers are more actively involved, and RX law -> RX IB is doable.

Law to banking is pretty difficult because the fields are SO different. The biggest concern is technical, so you'd need to show a real understanding of finance and accounting. Even if you worked on M&A deals as a lawyer, your experience is just not that directly relevant to the associate/VP job you'd be gunning for. I've seen 3 people do this, two stopped for an MBA and one took a big hit on seniority (2-3 years) and also got a CFA to show finance knowledge, which takes forever.

Crediting this as a former corporate lawyer. You really don’t see the economic dimensions of deals and what commercial drivers there are when you are redlining a P&S agreement so that insurers give your client a policy. You are a scribe and will be treated as such until you are a 65 equity partner who is managing partner and retires in Naples (if you are so lucky, 999/1000 won’t get there). 
 

Almost all the law surrounding proxy fights/shareholder activism etc is settled which makes the work less interesting and less frequent. You don’t see the same degree of takeovers and attorneys involved in these efforts. 
 

Feel free to ask any law or law school related questions here or via PM.