Read 8 comments as:
Filter By
What is the role of a law firm/lawyer in an m&a transaction as compared to investment bankers? What are the things that only legal advisors can do exclusively, which cannot be performed by an investment banker or say, a financial consultant?
doing legal due diligence on the target to look for things that might be problematic for example change of control clauses, drafting NDAs, Letters of intent, share purchase/asset purchase agreement, negotiation key terms for these documents etc.

if any associate/PA/Partner is seeing this, can you offer me an internship sir/ma'am?
Hum sirf agreement print karte hein since investment bankers do not have good printers.
If you do dumb work on .docx, you are a lawyer.
If you do dumb work on .ppt, you are a consultant.
If you do dumb work on .xlsx, you are an investment banker.
Honestly at the junior level the difference between lawyer and IB is night and day. I can't overstate how much more banking associates, and even analysts, understand the transaction vs. a junior lawyer. And at the mid level (banking VP vs 4-5 year lawyer) the gap is even wider . IB does a much better job of developing a broad understanding of how and why everything is happening; the economics of the deal, the assets being bought, why certain things are in the diligence checklist vs not, what's relevant and not, what buyers will ask about etc etc

It's impossible to understand the process without understanding the bigger picture, and law firms don't have an incentive to teach younger lawyers the big picture. Maybe when they get off the billable system they'll get more creative about developing talent, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Both involve a lot of bitch work but the lawyers do the more boring bitch work.
Honestly, after a point of time its just like being a "celebrated clerk" and not the judicial one while at it.