Very curious: who pulls more weight in M&A transactions, the bankers or the lawyers?
Who originates the deal? Who drives the process forward? Who is the trusted advisor to the client? Who structures the transaction? Who is stuck doing bitch work?
| +229 | Should My Intern Get a Return Offer? | 58 | 2d |
| +96 | UBS Accused of Favoring H-1B Workers While Cutting U.S.-Born Employees | 15 | 1h |
| +78 | Incompetent and annoying co-intern | 23 | 16h |
| +67 | Getting Laid in IB? | 28 | 2d |
| +66 | Intern keeps sleeping at work - what to tell them | 28 | 19h |
| +55 | Living in greenwich as an analyst? | 12 | 16h |
| +42 | NYC Associate Budget | 14 | 20h |
| +36 | Nauseous every morning for past 3 years in IB, anyone else? | 21 | 1d |
| +35 | Quick Thoughts on CVC AI Sale Process | 7 | 22h |
| +29 | Going out / social schedule as AN1 | 14 | 3d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
I mean a lawyer probably doesn't originate a deal just to answer your second questions...
Actually, not to overstate the depth of the "origination", but it is commonplace for lawyers to recommend bankers to their clients and bankers to recommend lawyers to their clients
Short answer, bankers (biased, but this is WSO).
Bankers originate deal. Bankers structure the deal in theory, lawyers handle the execution of the structure (registering/formation of an SPAV for example). Trusted advisor is both. Bankers are the more strategic advisor, lawyers are there to make sure the client doesn’t screwed. Bitch work...lmao both. Bankers get boned putting together data rooms/CIMs. Lawyers have to draw out multiple hundred+ legal docs. IMO, the lawyer work is worse. One of my good friends is in big law and we’ve been on vacation before where he’s had to head up to the hotel room to type out an asset definition for a specific transaction that was multiple pages long...f that lol
TL;DR: Bankers get more fees from deals for a reason.
Different in the RX world imo.
Depends on business cycle if lawyer or banker is getting the first phone call from the CEO
dude I can’t fucking get over your name. when I first saw it a while back I thought you were some sort of esteemed Indian doctor that was middle aged. I thought wow what a name , definitely real , worth a google. then I actually looked at your name AHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I’m going to laugh every time.
It's a Bond villain...
dude i swear youve done ib pe law hf quant oil cfa cpa ... ?
Let’s be honest, maybe this will be considered as an impopular opinion, but I cannot agree with what you’re saying.
Actually, I’m also a lawyer, and I’ve worked in investment banking (IB), specifically in M&A. In my experience, IB doesn’t do anything that a law firm cannot do. Most lawyers have studied economics and understand the bigger picture. I’ve been involved in significant mid-cap and large-cap deals on both sides. When I was in IB, the bankers would perform analyses and negotiate, but their work was always reviewed and even sometime corrected by lawyers, which also does others things (every legal due diligence) . Every single time.
When I was on the legal side, lawyers handled everything. From drafting agreements to conducting economic analyses, managing deals, and addressing all kinds of specific needs, including fiscal optimization. That’s why I returned to law. IB was a good experience, but honestly, the only real difference is the fees (because most of the time, when you does m&a, you also propose the product of your firm, like a loan or something, so double gain).
And actually, that’s why there’s been a shift. More and more companies—when it comes to LBOs or M&A—are going directly to their lawyers because, most of the time, they don’t need banks for anything beyond securing a loan.
This is also why lawyers who move to IB tend to stay there: you do half the work but get paid the same. Another key difference? Responsibility. Lawyers are more exposed in every country because of their legal status, and in case of issues, they take the hardest hit. That’s why, as a “stupid guy,” I chose to return to law. Maybe I earn slightly less money (which is still decent), but I feel far more stimulated in this field.
Lawyers have a broader perspective. They don’t focus solely on the financial aspects to evaluate the profitability of a deal, which is often IB’s only consideration. This narrow view can lead to a lack of profitability when you know how to combine legal and financial strategies effectively.
Great post, thanks. Can I ask you about MBA vs law school?
A bit Opposite in restructuring space I think.
This is changing. Lawyers are making more fees now
@Dr. Rahma Dikhinmahas Thank you for great post. Can I speak to you offline about MBA vs law school?
Lawyers are extremely, extremely important to the deal process. You literally can't and shouldn't even try to do any size transaction without legal help. A good lawyer is worth every penny.
However, banking work is just so much more interesting and strategic to the deal. The "who, what, when, why, where, and how" is done by a banker, and some incredibly important "how" is done by the lawyers.
All I know is that someone I know did a JD/MBA, interned both in Law at a top Firm and an EB and decided to return to the EB.
I wouldn't want to be a transactional M&A lawyer from what i've heard. Pay is good (starting base at 190k plus substantial bonus) but the big firms are just as sweaty as IB. The exit ops are very different in that most people want to escape to being an inhouse counsel at a F500 where you work 40 hr weeks and get paid like 300-500k. At the partner level at the big firms it's very similar to IB in that you either bring in clients or you're out. The absolute rainmakers in that area make $10mil and equity partners make like 3mil. The actually really interesting types of law (and potentially more lucrative) however are certain types of litigation. There's also like the whole academic and public service sides to law. You can't get exposed to any of those in finance.
After going on dates with a few lawyers, I heard that the base is around 180k-190k for almost all big law firms, but the bonus is non-existent. This one lawyer told me her bonus is only 10k, and that it was a normal bonus for most lawyers in the field as a result of the high base salary that they're getting paid.
I agree with what most are writing here, and wanted to add that it also depends on the industry and the amount of legal risk that is involved in a transaction. For an aircraft transaction I was working on, senior law people from the law firms were extremely helpful and necessary to understand many nuances such as what happens if a lessee defaults in a certain jurisdiction, and how repossession would work. Without them, modeling out the risks in the deal would be impossible.
The more legal risk there is, the more valuable the lawyers will be. However, it will take you decades of experience to gain this knowledge and as a result only the senior people are the go to for such questions, especially since the reputation of law firms are on the line each time a legal question is answered.
That's for the first years, bonus scales up as you climb the ladder:
https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/
Select "2019" to see total comp.
Love this. Amzing how much life experience you get sharing a bottle of wine with a lawyer / banker / any professional desperate to talk about the frustrating nuances of their day with a neutral third party. I became a paralegal many times over at Ara Wine Bar (RIP), Pegu Club (RIP), and Turks & Frogs.
Posting this here so everyone on this site can rub one out
I love Suits but this scene incredibly cringe worthy. The banker has an exceptionally punchable face.
Such a cringe-inducing scene. Script reads like what some amateur pornographer would think the banker and they lawyer would say to each other.
CEO originates the deal. Rarely bankers convinced a CEO to do a deal. More often he has an idea and he finds the best executioner
Bankers get mandated because they maintain good relationship with CEOs (countless pitches and market updates)
Lawyers pull a lot of weight but bankers probably not realize. The legal DD and all sorts of indemnity or clauses. Find me a deal without legal advisor and I can find you countless number of deals without financial advisor.
Bankers are valued for their negotiation tactics, not the BS pitchbook and valuation deck the juniors made. You think the CEO doesn't know how much he is willing to pay max? Your MD will try to decrypt the mind of all parties and come up with a valuation that makes his client happy. This is a sales business not a price discovery business.
I wonder if a law forum as opposed to one geared towards finance would have a different opinion. Otherwise, shall we assume everyone in law school on the transactional track was not able to land a banking role?
No, being a lawyer is way more popular in society than an Investment banker. Poor kids growing up know that a lawyer or doctor has prestige and is usually paid a high salary but they won't know what a banker does.
It sort of depends on the type of law you're practicing too. If you're a generic MM PE lawyer, then you are a commodity and the associate for the PE firm will be telling partners what to do. There's no real value add because the work for a plain vanilla LBO isn't complex and anyone can do it.
On the other hand, if you're dealing with complex antitrust issues or something like that, the lawyer adds a lot more value and will likely be driving the transaction vs. the financial advisors.
Disclaimer: do not work in M&A but work in IB currently and was formerly at one of the very best global law firms. Bankers focus primarily on questions of valuation and strategic angle. Lawyers focus primarily on questions of documentation and risk mitigation. Both are essential components in a transaction, but very different from one another from a practitioner's perspective.
Both are professions that are similarly lucrative. Both will allow you to potentially work on front page transactions. I migrated from law to finance for the following reasons:
I disliked pushing punctuation and grammar around on a page all day to produce transaction documents that most people wold never read.
I felt that the partnership model of big law lacked meritocracy, and I saw myself as exceptional, and so that was a turn off because I felt it was not the right structure to reward me commensurately. Some law firms (generally the better ones) have gravitated away from the egalitarian model that used to dominate, but the latter is still entrenched at most places.
Being a lawyer is even more of a pigeonhole than being a banker, and I felt that the exit option to in-house GC wasn't interesting to me.
I think many law firms are in for a reckoning in the coming decades as a lot of legal work is pretty commoditized and there's not a tremendous moat around it. Same can be said of parts of finance, but I felt the situation was more noticeable in law.
Both when I was at a law firm and after I left for finance, I felt that many lawyers lack a deep understanding of what it is they're working on. They know the ins-and-outs of indeminities, R&W's, etc. like the back of their hand, but ask them to explain the rationale for a transaction and they flounder. I didn't want to be so far removed from the "action" that I was reduced to a highly sophisticated/compensated document administrator. This has been much better in finance. Finance gets their best junior professionals involved in meaningful client interaction and strategic thought at a very early stage. In law, I rarely if ever saw lawyers interfacing with clients in a meaningful way. Most of the time, if at all, they were just interfacing with their clients' legal department, which is itself removed from the core of the action in a transaction and has been delegated some administrative subset of the work to do.
I think a lot of what is taught in law school is grossly masturbatory and bears little on the practice of law in the 21st century. I also loathe the idea that your grades, and therefore professional success, hinges upon the whims of out-of-touch law professors (i.e. people who don't even practice law) and whether you agree with their subjective interpretation of some meaningless obscure point of legal curiosity. Don't feel that the money is worth what you're being taught. If I was going to go to school for three years and blow a fraction of a million, I'd much rather learn something useful or interesting and not what some aged boomer thinks about some legal statute that couldn't matter less for our lives.
I could go on, but will stop here for now. TL; DR:
Bankers originate the deal with the help of senior finance, strategy, and c-suite people at the client
Bankers drive the process forward, up to and including the point where they instruct their client to hire a law firm and then instruct that law firm to continue running the documentation part of the process/research some facet of the deal/etc.
Both are trusted advisors but for different facets of the process and the legal side is very strictly confined to what I consider to be the mundane, impractical, and boring; and
Both sides will do mundane work but you will do far more of it as a lawyer. In an abstract and somewhat childish sense, most legal work is "bitch work" as you are essentially just papering a deal that the bankers, the buyers, and the client negotiated the terms of prior to your involvement. You come in to put it in a contract, dot the I's and cross the T's.
While it's correct that most of the work being done by lawyers is pure documentation, one thing that posters have not pointed out is that transactional lawyers (particularly transactional tax lawyers) oftentimes drive the structuring of the actual transaction, such as choice of entity being used to make the acquisition, the level at which debt will be held, the level at which the sellers will rollover their equity, etc. Considerations here are not just legal/regulatory issues but also the economics, e.g. how the acquisition/sale can be structured in the most efficient manner. Public company mergers also involve some thinking on whether the merger can be done tax-free, etc. This is an area that the bankers generally can't advise on.
Good and valid point, however I glossed over it because for most people on this forum, the minutiae of tax structuring will fall under the rubric of administrative detail. Further, bankers will frequently be conversant in the tax/regulatory issues their clients face. You still need a lawyer to bless a particular course of action, but a banker worth their salt can typically explain what the right course of action is and why if need be, and they'll also be able to recommend counsel that is competent to face the issues.
The overall objective of Mergers and Acquisitions is typically financial/economic incentive. The bankers run point on the finance side of things and are thereby more instrumental to achieving the objective. Lawyers are needed to legally cement the features of the deal, but aren't in the drivers seat.
IBs win on fees but lawyers still get paid when the deal blows up.
Transactional lawyer by trade and have lots of friends in IB. Have also worked with tons of bankers on transactions. My thoughts:
Bankers are moreso in the driver’s seat, and get paid more.
Lawyers can be incredibly valuable in terms of structuring and risk mitigation. As another poster mentioned, a good lawyer is worth their weight in gold and is seen as a trusted advisor.
Bankers work longer hours than lawyers. During some transactions, hours will be similar, but on average, my banking friends are expected to work much longer hours than myself and my lawyer friends.
The choice of career will depend largely on your interests. If you don’t like what you’re doing most of the time, you’re gonna be in for a bad time. I absolutely love reading and writing, and could easily read thousands of pages a day, but put me in front of an Excel sheet and my innate first reaction is for my eyes to glaze over. I don’t mind the finance side but my strength and interest lies primarily on the reading and writing side.
Clients tend to push back on their lawyers less as they know much less about the law than they (think they) do about the business side.
Law has a lower ceiling but less risk. It’s a career for risk averse people. As someone mentioned, if the deal blows up they still get paid. Most firms have a structured advancement program where you get lockstep yearly raises and there’s a defined path to partnership if you’re willing to put the hours in.
Whether you’re a successful banker or a successful lawyer, you’re going to make more money than the vast majority of people.
What makes you say that law has a lower ceiling but less risk? In some ways the career path can be more risky due to niche skillset, tuition costs, chance of getting job, etc.
UOT law is prestigious af, I know Muskoka is filled with lawyers who went there and made a killing. Given your title I was wondering if you have any advice for how to study for the LSAT and guides that you would recommend.
Stick to the Powerscore and Manhattan guides. I read the PowerScore logical reasoning and logic games bibles before I did any practice tests. Manhattan is also very good. Kaplan’s not worth it.
Do as many practice tests as you can, and do blind review (google it) to really sharpen your logic skills and get good quickly. Don’t look at the answers before you’ve done a blind review of every question. Think of the answers as a reward for doing a blind review.
The LSAT is a learnable test. I went from low 160s on my first practice test to high 170s on the actual LSAT.
I wouldn't be able to answer clearly without knowing all the conditions of the deal, so the work of the banker and the lawyer is synchronous.
Quidem dicta sapiente laudantium dignissimos fugit. Dolorem voluptate optio deleniti voluptatem delectus. Debitis est et saepe accusantium eum iusto sequi. Officia est qui sunt aut. Ipsa mollitia veniam voluptate et qui aut cum.
Quaerat architecto velit recusandae saepe et vitae perspiciatis. Et consequatur aperiam distinctio nobis et. Possimus et odio omnis eum autem quas. Enim temporibus alias voluptatem adipisci. Qui occaecati hic quia dolores sed nihil.
Magnam commodi ipsam molestias dignissimos quod praesentium. Aut ut adipisci ullam aut enim omnis. Rem et accusantium ut explicabo atque. Quos sit et velit ex aut. Nobis non enim alias fugit ea aperiam ut quo. Doloremque fugiat ut porro aut magnam quis sit qui.
Ut aut velit deserunt ipsum minima ut. Dolorem non consequatur et eveniet ut quis laborum. Sit et omnis inventore et et quae. Voluptatibus voluptatem ut atque temporibus ea vel. Atque ab dolor est unde aut nisi vel. Enim quos quod impedit.
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...
Voluptas voluptate reiciendis dolorem eum distinctio voluptas eos quo. Omnis et in vitae impedit ad quae aut. Ipsa vel officia eos praesentium sit voluptates dolore. Quae doloremque iusto cum assumenda.
At corporis sit tenetur dolores voluptatem est reiciendis quam. Omnis numquam provident corporis dolores placeat. Nostrum nemo dolorem sint voluptatem et eum provident. Quia architecto et esse quo.
Deleniti iusto repudiandae eligendi iste et. Voluptas repudiandae in sint et placeat blanditiis rem. Laborum et labore ut velit. Cum ea eius sed eius voluptatem. Mollitia recusandae quaerat soluta recusandae consectetur nulla.
Illum voluptas omnis ratione rem quia. Qui a impedit nostrum in rem ullam molestiae. Nam voluptates non quae in consequuntur dicta sed harum. Earum officia quia qui fugiat praesentium. Eum commodi aut qui blanditiis atque.
Repellat iusto voluptas fuga at illum accusantium. Consequatur dolores perspiciatis quis. Id veniam rem natus sed sequi eaque et. Dignissimos odit incidunt nihil vel dicta odit placeat.
Facilis dicta voluptatem natus velit. Doloremque accusantium non ut molestiae ut est voluptatem. Consequatur et corrupti earum porro aut ratione commodi.
Porro facilis temporibus nam quia qui error consequatur. Velit itaque est sed qui et est eos. Molestiae aut rerum sequi qui quidem ut cupiditate. Dignissimos voluptatem hic id deserunt distinctio assumenda.
Et est voluptatem voluptatem incidunt. Facilis eos minus voluptas nulla a reprehenderit. Fuga enim nulla doloribus provident voluptas et doloribus. Et et quo eligendi et inventore facilis dignissimos quam. Quae non eos eos aut sed labore rerum sunt. Omnis voluptas qui voluptatem nihil odit blanditiis cum.