I'm sure any M&A lawyer can relate to the pain of having to deal with these idiotic investment bankers chasing and coming up with unrealistic deadlines while doing pretty much nothing except sitting on their asses.
What are some of the most painful experiences you have had (feel free to name the investment banks / transaction advisors without naming individuals) and what can firms / attorneys do to address the situation?
The objective of this thread isn't just to name and shame (that would require that people have shame -- which really isn't the case) but to stimulate conversation on what can be done to address the deterioration of things (which were in dire straits to begin with).
Dealt with Avendus a short while back and it was a terrible experience. Hope to never come across them but knowing this line they'll probably turn up again.
Have your clients on your side - that’s the best way to deal with pushy I bankers. If your client tells or backs you up when you tell the bankers to back off, they can’t do much as the client is the principal. Also, don’t push back on timelines etc on all party calls. Do it after the call, one on one in the virtual presence of your client.
If this is not an option, then be ready to be blamed for the deal pace, whether or not it has anything to do with you.
You guys are horrible. Talking trash about everyone - clients, banks and what not.
All you need to do is some useless paper work and call yourself 'corporate attorney' or whatever. You are getting paid this much so that you push the paperwork fast rather than BSing here.
Received this link as a message, from a friend who himself is a paper pusher at one of the legal firms you guys work at :P
It's a lawyers thread of course, saw the hate above.
Let me just remind you, most of you got into these law schools when there was literally zero competition. I know many who got getting horrible JEE ranks and even worse 12th grades getting in top law schools where some of you guys are studying. Even the average BE Guy's can get into any of your law schools.
That's why I wonder - how are you getting paid so much - almost the level of IB Analysts. Despite doing some paper pushing work.
Some of you whom I have dealt with - can't even do an Excel sheet properly. An Attorney once called and pushed our deadlines because he couldn't figure out how to do an excel sheet.
Arre bhai, of course we're not familiar with excel. We don't need to use it everyday like IB analysts. This like me throwing Palkhivala on Income Tax at you expecting you to structure the transaction in a way that saves crores.
Bro - we are lawyers and you are IB, for a reason. Lets not get into the definition of success or who works harder that who.
You got that forward from your friend because you work at Avendus. Your friend was either pulling your leg or sending it to you just FYI. Now you wanted to diss, but without making it look like a lash out from Avendus. Hence, your snarky comment about "over paid lawyers BSing here".
Feel free to tell me how I got it all wrong, that your are not Avendus, or how mediocre we lawyers are ;) Meanwhile, I will get back to my paper pushing (its middle of the week after all - paper pushing at its worst!).
Yes ofcourse. Because it was the investment bankers with microsoft excel skills who were involved in some of the most historic events in the world. Not the lawyers, just some bros from JP Morgan🤣
And here's me, trying to figure out what historic events have corporate lawyers been part of. Other than being passive observants to things like the subprime crisis. Investment Bankers are worse because they've been behind such crises, always.
It's the actual lawyers (you know, the ones that actually get to wear the robes) who have been always involved in the historic events
Definitely, you're a High School student who is yet to join college, or else you have got an extremely unidimensional perspective. Neither CLAT nor JEE is a measure of one's abilities, especially in the case of LAW. It's ALWAYS about practice. How much of big deal is it to solve an RC passage - VARC - or 10th Standard level based Quant questions?
Also, JEE, and CLAT require different kinds of skills, so you can excel in one and topple in another. Rocket science nhi hai!
Engineering grads, aadhe se zyada toh work at TCS. Can't even solve basic DSA problems.
Neither of IBs or lawyers do a job with requires actual skills. Both bankers and lawyers work eerily long hours to do mundane, mechanical tasks that require little to no intellectual firepower.
Arey bhai, jab parties land into dispute or dispute a deal for xyz reason, arbitrator or court settles this basis the same so called useless paperwork!
Are you the one who gave me a deadline to share the draft by last night and then you were here chilling on LI? Good thing you forwarded the draft to the larger group at 8 am without even bothering to check my comments meant only for you 😂. Real hard worker..
The fact that you didn't get a good job to see what's a corporate lawyers life, doesn't give you the right to thrash talk. If you are not a part, you have no say.
Attorneys just don't want to do the work.Push the work on others and take the big bucks.This is a result of the toxic work atmospheres in your law firms.This works there and now you do it in front of clients by putting down the ibankers to elevate your status.Disgusting toxic practises of the lawyers
Have dealt with 2 Avendus people on 2 different deals. The guy was crazy on timelines (not anymore than how we lawyers are) but was accommodative. He made an effort to understand stuff. The gal was rude, least bothered to understand issues. Just wanted to push across her point, without making an effort to understand the issue.
As an Banker, we have a few Attorney in the office. They are not even good for this paper pushing work. That's why they engage you guys. These office attorneys definitely don't deserve any pay or the extra cubicle in office. Since all they do is push the papers outside to worse paper pushers (you guys) who can't even understand a basic quant model which even school kids can grasp.
Try this disclaimer next time on top of the document you send out:
“This xxx Agreement typically takes anywhere between ___ to ___ hours to [draft/review]. However, given the deadline stipulated by [I bank], we had no option but to turn this document around in __ hours. Accordingly, we will not be responsible for any errors, omissions or lapses or any issues that may arise in the future on account of such errors, omissions or lapses.”
Side question: What are some daft things that ibanks have proposed and why were/would they be disastrous for the client? How did you deal with daft proposals?
Avendus - they have hired monkeys who cannot even understand simple instructions despite sending them tabular formats or explaining checklists on calls lasting for hours.
Avendus has cheap PE money invested in it and needs to scale rapidly to provide an exit. What do you think happens in such a scenario when the only metric that matters is growth?
Avendus’ entire business model is built around getting i banking business. They then use that to provide asset management and wealth management solutions to corporate treasury and founder clients. No I banking deals equals no other business.
Agreed - Avendus and Nomura are exceptionally bad. Absolutely horrible, and would never want to work with either of them. They both take it to a whole new level when it comes to unrealistic timelines and it doesn't help when the client doesn't stand up to their antics.
Bengaluru based law shops and their shop keepers call them M&A attorneys and criticize and bad mouth IBs. Come to Mumbai to learn how transsctions are done.
I always wondered why they get more than we do, despite having mostly clerical paper work which requires no cognitive abilities. Most of them were average kids at school who someone made it to these law schools, atleast from my school days.
Only ones whom I have seen going to these law schools are the ones who don't even get engineering admissions in some private colleges.
While Avendus is the worst, there are few good ones too - JPM is class apart - it has always been an extremely pleasant experience to work with them. They engage in dialogue and always make an attempt to understand the issue.
I've been following this discussion with a fair bit of amusement (& eventual consternation).. While I am not entirely sure if the mudslinging is nearing the end, I think it would be useful to try and redefine this conversation into one that at least brings some meaningful outcomes to lawyers, i-bankers and of course the clients involved.
The question should be, what would it take for investment bankers and lawyers to better understand one another such that they bring value to their work / role, which in turn flows back to the client(s) and the outcome of the deal? I'm gonna put down a few things that in my experience as a lawyer, require fixing from both lawyers and investment bankers.
In my practice as a lawyer, I see that the most common problems that lawyers create (I'm just being candid here) are the following:
1. failing to appreciate the work / effort that has gone into the deal, prior to the involvement of the lawyers. Most lawyers, in my observation show little or no understanding (let alone empathy) for the fact that the client, the bankers (& the tax advisors) would have spent several months (sometimes years) in trying to thrash out a commercial understanding with the counter party. The presumption that most legal teams walk in with is that everyone on the table is a greenhorn to the current deal, when in reality a lot of effort would have gone into even bringing the deal up to the stage where lawyer involvement becomes necessary. Of course there are good arguments to change this arrangement where lawyer involvement comes in earlier but lets touch on that later;
2. poor staffing on deals. This is of course partly (or largely) due to the very strangely budgeted lawyer fees that are allocated in a deal process. But the simple fact is that after a mandate is 'won' by a firm, inevitably the implementation (i.e. doing the DD and documentation) is left to a legal team which is led by a person who often don't have enough experience to handle such a matter. When I say experience, I mean that the senior-most person from the legal team who is on each call / meeting should have at least 8-10 years of experience (nothing less!). In an ideal world, the Partner or the PA (each carrying a track record of 8-10 years of experience) should be on each call such that there is at least some effort made in working towards closure (& issues can be resolved quicker, assuming of course the Partner / PA isn't a complete idiot!). The reason I harp on experience is because when you are on a vortex of z(d)oom calls trying to work out a deal, an experienced lawyer (or any professional for that matter) at least demonstrates a certain credibility and seriousness on the part of the firm and that side to try and resolve the matter and brings in some maturity to the trajectory of the conversation. In my experience of working with i-bankers (& I've worked with nearly all the big names), most of them always ensure that the main contact person: (i) has relevant experience of several years in the space; (ii) is constantly accessible throughout the process; and (iii) has the 'people' skill to manage all kinds of 'hairy' situations. The other allied problem of inexperienced lawyers on the deal is that we end up wasting time dealing with what are frankly timepass issues. A senior enough team will make the effort of at least pointing out the problems that can stop the deal or create a budgetary mess, instead of wasting large group discussion times on explaining the implications of under-stamped non-disclosure agreements whose term lapsed in 2017.
3. strange expectations of timelines. When you, as a lawyer, walk into a deal that's running under an i-banking process (whether as a Partner or as a first year associate), you should know that there is a timer that's immediately gone off the minute that your firm got mandated (even if your involvement came in much later - yes it is harsh, but that's life). Deals that are run through an i-banking process are ALWAYS aggressive on deadlines. I've never had a single i-banker come to me and say "Take all the time you want"; its always, "everything is due as of yesterday". That reality has not changed in years and it's unlikely to change in the future. If you get staffed on a deal which is being run under an i-banking process, you have to expect to be bombarded with deadlines.
Now, lets move on to things that I think i-bankers have gotten wrong, in the times I've worked with them:
1. Zero ability to prevail on the counterparty. If you ask me, the Dharma of an i-banker is to be an aggressive shark; whether it's through in your face combativeness or through consistent nagging and followups, an i-banker has to manage the deal effectively and keep pushing everyone towards closure (especially if there are no 'serious' issues or gaps in the commercial deal). I've met quite a few bankers who are useless at being able to prevail on the other side and push hard on their client's positions. Incidentally I did a deal with Avendus last year and they were brilliant at chopping / crushing / pummelling down the other side into a big sobbing mess (which worked brilliantly for my clients). Frankly that was very much the need of the hour in that deal and Avendus did exactly what was expected of a professional banker (i.e. push our point across, hard!). But I've seen several i-bankers who are a meandering mess when it comes to pushing a point across.
2. Inability to set a negotiating tone. If it is the i-banker(s) that has/have created the deal, brought the parties together and engaged the tax and legal advisors, it is important for the i-bankers to keep / preserve / maintain a negotiating tone throughout the process. I've seen this enough and more times to know that when an i-banker goes from being all out class monitor from chasing on documents, fixing calls, hounding for xyz, to suddenly going quiet, something has gone awfully wrong. Sometimes there may be reasons for the change but what a lot of i-bankers fail to understand is that if you suddenly change the pace of your functioning from fast to unresponsive, that's bound to kill a deal a lot quicker than you can imagine. It may seem like a rookie mistake but it has happened with a lot of very senior guys I've dealt with in the past.
3. No rapport with the counterparty. This is closely linked to 1 above (for i-bankers). To me a good i-banker should be pally, if not chaddi buddies with the counterparty (or if nothing else, the counterparty's worst nightmare - see point 1 above) and be able to push through otherwise tough positions and reach agreements on sticky issues, purely through a personal rapport that they build (remember that long process they run before the lawyers come in? WTF was happening then, I tell you!). A lot of i-bankers I have dealt with, despite their intelligence and IIM / ISB / Ivy-league MBAs are a disaster when it comes to trying to persuade the counterparty on a sticky issue, purely due to their inability to communicate or convey a POV meaningfully. A personal rapport, a connect, or at least a carefully positioned stance can do wonders at times like these - this is something that I've seen go wrong multiple times.
I am sure people can think of other problems as well for both sides, but enough of the chiding. The 'solutions' to what I mentioned above are, I'd imagine, not hard to appreciate and don't need to be laboured on.
To conclude, to anyone and everyone who thinks that lawyers or i-bankers are replaceable or worse, dispensable on a deal because of the challenges in working with one another, I would say you are hopelessly wrong. I would also say that you clearly have not experienced enough in life where you fail to understand the crucial importance of professional relationships, equations, friendships in creating a stake for yourself in the M&A/PE advisory space. Personal rapports are everything, especially for lawyers and investment bankers. And if you want to succeed, this mudslinging will do you no good, whether you are a lawyer or a banker.
Looks like these IBs haven’t met tax lawyers yet. And who are you guys kidding? Junior associates and IBs both have no real work to do. Just some paperwork that the seniors don’t want to do. Not like anyone gets to call the shots.
What are some of the most painful experiences you have had (feel free to name the investment banks / transaction advisors without naming individuals) and what can firms / attorneys do to address the situation?
The objective of this thread isn't just to name and shame (that would require that people have shame -- which really isn't the case) but to stimulate conversation on what can be done to address the deterioration of things (which were in dire straits to begin with).
If this is not an option, then be ready to be blamed for the deal pace, whether or not it has anything to do with you.
All you need to do is some useless paper work and call yourself 'corporate attorney' or whatever. You are getting paid this much so that you push the paperwork fast rather than BSing here.
Valuation aur numbers ghumake kya ghar pe sajaoge fir?
It's a lawyers thread of course, saw the hate above.
Let me just remind you, most of you got into these law schools when there was literally zero competition. I know many who got getting horrible JEE ranks and even worse 12th grades getting in top law schools where some of you guys are studying. Even the average BE Guy's can get into any of your law schools.
That's why I wonder - how are you getting paid so much - almost the level of IB Analysts. Despite doing some paper pushing work.
Some of you whom I have dealt with - can't even do an Excel sheet properly. An Attorney once called and pushed our deadlines because he couldn't figure out how to do an excel sheet.
You got that forward from your friend because you work at Avendus. Your friend was either pulling your leg or sending it to you just FYI. Now you wanted to diss, but without making it look like a lash out from Avendus. Hence, your snarky comment about "over paid lawyers BSing here".
Feel free to tell me how I got it all wrong, that your are not Avendus, or how mediocre we lawyers are ;) Meanwhile, I will get back to my paper pushing (its middle of the week after all - paper pushing at its worst!).
It's the actual lawyers (you know, the ones that actually get to wear the robes) who have been always involved in the historic events
Also, JEE, and CLAT require different kinds of skills, so you can excel in one and topple in another. Rocket science nhi hai!
Engineering grads, aadhe se zyada toh work at TCS. Can't even solve basic DSA problems.
Both bankers and lawyers work eerily long hours to do mundane, mechanical tasks that require little to no intellectual firepower.
especially when they are smarter than you and used to working longer hours and see you as a bottleneck
“This xxx Agreement typically takes anywhere between ___ to ___ hours to [draft/review]. However, given the deadline stipulated by [I bank], we had no option but to turn this document around in __ hours. Accordingly, we will not be responsible for any errors, omissions or lapses or any issues that may arise in the future on account of such errors, omissions or lapses.”
What do you think happens in such a scenario when the only metric that matters is growth?
No I banking deals equals no other business.
I always wondered why they get more than we do, despite having mostly clerical paper work which requires no cognitive abilities. Most of them were average kids at school who someone made it to these law schools, atleast from my school days.
Only ones whom I have seen going to these law schools are the ones who don't even get engineering admissions in some private colleges.
The question should be, what would it take for investment bankers and lawyers to better understand one another such that they bring value to their work / role, which in turn flows back to the client(s) and the outcome of the deal? I'm gonna put down a few things that in my experience as a lawyer, require fixing from both lawyers and investment bankers.
In my practice as a lawyer, I see that the most common problems that lawyers create (I'm just being candid here) are the following:
1. failing to appreciate the work / effort that has gone into the deal, prior to the involvement of the lawyers. Most lawyers, in my observation show little or no understanding (let alone empathy) for the fact that the client, the bankers (& the tax advisors) would have spent several months (sometimes years) in trying to thrash out a commercial understanding with the counter party. The presumption that most legal teams walk in with is that everyone on the table is a greenhorn to the current deal, when in reality a lot of effort would have gone into even bringing the deal up to the stage where lawyer involvement becomes necessary. Of course there are good arguments to change this arrangement where lawyer involvement comes in earlier but lets touch on that later;
2. poor staffing on deals. This is of course partly (or largely) due to the very strangely budgeted lawyer fees that are allocated in a deal process. But the simple fact is that after a mandate is 'won' by a firm, inevitably the implementation (i.e. doing the DD and documentation) is left to a legal team which is led by a person who often don't have enough experience to handle such a matter. When I say experience, I mean that the senior-most person from the legal team who is on each call / meeting should have at least 8-10 years of experience (nothing less!). In an ideal world, the Partner or the PA (each carrying a track record of 8-10 years of experience) should be on each call such that there is at least some effort made in working towards closure (& issues can be resolved quicker, assuming of course the Partner / PA isn't a complete idiot!). The reason I harp on experience is because when you are on a vortex of z(d)oom calls trying to work out a deal, an experienced lawyer (or any professional for that matter) at least demonstrates a certain credibility and seriousness on the part of the firm and that side to try and resolve the matter and brings in some maturity to the trajectory of the conversation. In my experience of working with i-bankers (& I've worked with nearly all the big names), most of them always ensure that the main contact person: (i) has relevant experience of several years in the space; (ii) is constantly accessible throughout the process; and (iii) has the 'people' skill to manage all kinds of 'hairy' situations. The other allied problem of inexperienced lawyers on the deal is that we end up wasting time dealing with what are frankly timepass issues. A senior enough team will make the effort of at least pointing out the problems that can stop the deal or create a budgetary mess, instead of wasting large group discussion times on explaining the implications of under-stamped non-disclosure agreements whose term lapsed in 2017.
3. strange expectations of timelines. When you, as a lawyer, walk into a deal that's running under an i-banking process (whether as a Partner or as a first year associate), you should know that there is a timer that's immediately gone off the minute that your firm got mandated (even if your involvement came in much later - yes it is harsh, but that's life). Deals that are run through an i-banking process are ALWAYS aggressive on deadlines. I've never had a single i-banker come to me and say "Take all the time you want"; its always, "everything is due as of yesterday". That reality has not changed in years and it's unlikely to change in the future. If you get staffed on a deal which is being run under an i-banking process, you have to expect to be bombarded with deadlines.
Now, lets move on to things that I think i-bankers have gotten wrong, in the times I've worked with them:
1. Zero ability to prevail on the counterparty. If you ask me, the Dharma of an i-banker is to be an aggressive shark; whether it's through in your face combativeness or through consistent nagging and followups, an i-banker has to manage the deal effectively and keep pushing everyone towards closure (especially if there are no 'serious' issues or gaps in the commercial deal). I've met quite a few bankers who are useless at being able to prevail on the other side and push hard on their client's positions. Incidentally I did a deal with Avendus last year and they were brilliant at chopping / crushing / pummelling down the other side into a big sobbing mess (which worked brilliantly for my clients). Frankly that was very much the need of the hour in that deal and Avendus did exactly what was expected of a professional banker (i.e. push our point across, hard!). But I've seen several i-bankers who are a meandering mess when it comes to pushing a point across.
2. Inability to set a negotiating tone. If it is the i-banker(s) that has/have created the deal, brought the parties together and engaged the tax and legal advisors, it is important for the i-bankers to keep / preserve / maintain a negotiating tone throughout the process. I've seen this enough and more times to know that when an i-banker goes from being all out class monitor from chasing on documents, fixing calls, hounding for xyz, to suddenly going quiet, something has gone awfully wrong. Sometimes there may be reasons for the change but what a lot of i-bankers fail to understand is that if you suddenly change the pace of your functioning from fast to unresponsive, that's bound to kill a deal a lot quicker than you can imagine. It may seem like a rookie mistake but it has happened with a lot of very senior guys I've dealt with in the past.
3. No rapport with the counterparty. This is closely linked to 1 above (for i-bankers). To me a good i-banker should be pally, if not chaddi buddies with the counterparty (or if nothing else, the counterparty's worst nightmare - see point 1 above) and be able to push through otherwise tough positions and reach agreements on sticky issues, purely through a personal rapport that they build (remember that long process they run before the lawyers come in? WTF was happening then, I tell you!). A lot of i-bankers I have dealt with, despite their intelligence and IIM / ISB / Ivy-league MBAs are a disaster when it comes to trying to persuade the counterparty on a sticky issue, purely due to their inability to communicate or convey a POV meaningfully. A personal rapport, a connect, or at least a carefully positioned stance can do wonders at times like these - this is something that I've seen go wrong multiple times.
I am sure people can think of other problems as well for both sides, but enough of the chiding. The 'solutions' to what I mentioned above are, I'd imagine, not hard to appreciate and don't need to be laboured on.
To conclude, to anyone and everyone who thinks that lawyers or i-bankers are replaceable or worse, dispensable on a deal because of the challenges in working with one another, I would say you are hopelessly wrong. I would also say that you clearly have not experienced enough in life where you fail to understand the crucial importance of professional relationships, equations, friendships in creating a stake for yourself in the M&A/PE advisory space. Personal rapports are everything, especially for lawyers and investment bankers. And if you want to succeed, this mudslinging will do you no good, whether you are a lawyer or a banker.