"I am about to embark on my training seats and need to decide between public M&A and private equity as my corporate seat.
"Can someone explain to me the pros and cons for each? At first glance, I would favour private equity - the environment seems to be more entrepreneurial, the deals are smaller and seem to have more 'point' to them, the clients are very bright and hopefully interesting, and some of the deals are very novel...
"Will the hours differ? I hear private equity clients are the most demanding of all - is this correct? Does having a speciality in one or the other affect employment prospects down the line in-house?
"Any more information to help me make the decision would be appreciated."
Click 'Comment on this article' to post your advice in confidence - or click here to share your wisdom on the Legal Week Wiki, where no topic is off limits. Rate or slate your firm and its rivals with our ground-breaking insider's guide to City law.
And remember, Career Clinic is only as good as the questions we receive, so email your career conundrums to community@legalweek.com.
Both are good seats and will stand you in good stead later. In both of them you're likely to have a fairly menial role, although it's arguable that you'll have greater exposure to clients and the structure of a deal on the private equity one. From a trainee's perspective the private equity deal is generally more manageable, understandable and, unless it's a massive deal, more likely to allow you to carve out a role which may demonstrate your abilities. Personalities matter too - go for the team where you seem to fit in better - this will help your performance. It won't damage your career prospects to have done either at this stage. You're too junior and the tasks you will be doing will likely be common to both. Trainees often forget that their corporate seat is but a short taster of what's to come. It's only much later in your career that your skills and experience (and possibly your relationships with clients and intermediaries) may determine where and how you specialise. A private equity lawyer without knowledge of public takeovers is a scary beast and vice versa.
I'd say they are both very good seats and you will learn a lot. I wouldn't worry about the hours in each, like all seats, you will be very busy when deals are on. In the current climate you might find private equity will be busier than public M&A but that could change by the time you are qualifying. Don't forget that in private equity, you will be dealing with some very smart entrepreneurs, but you could just as easily be acting for the banks involved (whether the senior debt or the mez piece provider). On balance, I would say that private equity will be more interesting, and you could always learn the public M&A stuff (like the takeover code) later on. If you were to go in-house at a bank at a later date, don't forget that the bankers will be instructing their own outside lawyers, and your job may be solely to advise on the engagement letter with the client. It can be pretty soul-destroying reviewing hundreds of engagement letters and not get involved in the actual deals, but that's how it is at the very big M&A houses. That's all I know. Good luck. May
Good advice above - the main point I would add is to relax a bit, most law firms are fairly happy to move associates round their corporate teams as part of developing their experience. Plus, the nature of the work done by each team will vary depending on what is coming through the door. So to give a fairly facile example, if the firm gets loads of public instructions and no private equity instructions, the likelihood is that the private equity guys will do the public work too. Of the two, ignoring market conditions, I'd suggest private equity as a better bet as you might get take-privates as well and therefore see some public work too. But, taking into account market conditions, if you want to be busy (which helps getting taken on as a NQ), have a look for a sector-focused team dealing with the financial sector - I would say that's where the action is likely to be. All depends on the firm you work for though.
While I am here, then, can I also ask: I once did a week vacation placement in debt finance. I absolutely hated it. Loan agreements are very tedious. Does this bode well for me not enjoying M&A work too?
Truthfully, I think my heart lies in litigation. Do I need a reality check on that too? Can that be seen as boring?
Thanks
That doesn't bode well. M&A can be very dull as a trainee (unless sitting in a windowless room summarising contracts without really having a clue what's going on is your cup of tea). But then the same is true of litigation as a trainee (my litigation experience was sitting in a windowless room sorting documents into date order and putting page numbers on them). Life gets more interesting post-qualification, but if you're not able to cope with the boring aspects of the job, you're probably in the wrong career. Personally I've found things get less boring the more I understand them, but maybe that's just me.
For me, it is about the underlying inherent meaning to be potentially found in the work.
The reason I am drawn to litigation is that I can see the bigger picture and can about it. I like the fact that there is a winner and a loser. Merely facilitating (however enjoyable that may be) does not appeal, as its just a matter of making someone money.
It seems to me that in litigation, there is an epistemological challenge of building a case - and sitting in a room marking up documents doing it, I can appreciate as a necessary evil. In corporate, due diligence etc, while similar in that you are still in a windowless room like you say, nevertheless is conceptually different in what is being achieved.
Can I suggest you avoid using words like 'epistemological' when communicating to clients, whether you do a public M&A or private equity seat?
Instead of hypothesising about how your life will be as a trainee, listen to the sensible advice given above from people who know what they are talking about. You'll soon realise when you start work how little you know about anything and the sooner you accept that the better. I went for private equity on the basis that it interests me and the fact that when the leveraged market dries up (as it has done for the last nine months), you have the opportunity to do general corporate work instead so you get the best of both worlds. My advice is to keep an open mind and not base your decision on a week's work experience.
Well, my understanding is the vast majority of litigation settles. Indeed the main point of the Woolf reforms was to move away from the adversarial approach to encourage swifter resolution. My understanding is that in the commercial sector most clients aren't litigating on a principle, they're litigating to protect an interest, which can sometimes be better served by informal negotation than by courtroom rhetoric. So, this makes it more similar to some aspects of transactional work than might be apparent on face value. Getting what your client wants and "winning" aren't always the same thing.
From what you say, I am slightly concerned about your expectations out of the law. Whether it is public M&A or private equity or litigation, you have to understand that as a solicitor, you are there to assist clients, either to make money, or avoid losing it. It's an oversimplification to think that litigation is the most rewarding because (as you say) there's a clear winner and a loser; as one poster rightly said, most cases settle anyway, and if you found that to be unrewarding, despite having saved your client further unnecessary costs, you are probably in the wrong profession. Perhaps you have been watching too much TV drama programmes like Judge Deed - real life in the law is nothing like it is on TV!
Beware of being too fond of litigation as a trainee/solicitor. I found from my litigation seat that in any decent sized case, the 'action' (drafting, strategy, legal research) is run by the barristers instructed while the solicitor holds the client's hand at meetings and hearings.
I'd go for public M&A if I were you. It will stand you in good stead should you want to qualify there and perhaps later in your career want to work for a large listed company in-house.
I couldn't agree more with the poster considering litigation (or more correctly, dispute resolution). Whilst some lawyers get a (to my mind incomprehensible) buzz from 'doing a deal' (i.e. facilitating their client's plans) I much prefer being in the driving seat i.e. knowing the law and advising my client (which often involves negotiating settlements).
Related Articles
Latest Jobs
