We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
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.”
One fine day, a post-filing regulator calls me and yells at me for putting pressure on him through back channels. Later, the boss got a fierce call from someone senior in the regulator, saying someone had called them. Our party principal (squeaky clean) then had a call with the counterparty to shut this down.
Got an approval quickly after I back-channelled and calmed them down. Post-approval, the I Banker called to thank and offer sheepish explanations. Later called again for some administrative tasks - decided not to pick up the phone. Kept things on e-mail. All they did with their pushiness was damage the client's reputation before the regulator.
They simply do not appreciate the verbal finesse required for this job. Browbeating on concalls with blunt statements only gets you so far.
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.