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?
2. Firms that have dedicated PE and VC transactions practice are generally tier 2 firms (Rajaram and the like). In tier 1 firms if you’re doing PE and VC you’re also probably doing M&A. The ratio differs from firm to firm. So this is the opposite of what you’re implying. It’s much more likely you’ll get boxed in to a particular area of practice at a smaller firm rather than a bigger one that houses multiple practice areas.
3. It sounds like you haven’t practiced transactional law. Any transactions lawyer at a Tier 1 has atleast a basic understanding of the companies act, ODI Regulations, and hopefully FEMA too although that can be shaky for some. I’m sure that applies to Tier 2 firms as well. But again, I’m not sure how that makes working at one any better from the perspective of eventually moving inhouse.
4. I am an in-house lawyer now. I have worked at the big multinationals as well as at the growth start up stage. Growth stage start ups that are likely to pay well strongly prefer tier 1 experience. Go out there in the market and look. It’s no secret.
5. There are many advantages of working at a Tier 2 practice. These are ownership of work, more direct face time with partners, exposure of the entire deal cycle on small value transactions. All of these are very worthwhile, but that unfortunately doesn’t change the reality that companies look for brands in the first instance.
6. I am not saying lawyers at one of these are better than the other. If you’re good lawyer who can market their skills, you will get hired. All I am saying is that if you’re at a Tier 1 you are started off with an advantage compared to others who aren’t. Sucks but it is what it is.
7. None of what I said above was “rubbish”. Try attempting insightful discourse.
Tier 2 are daily struggling for growth, whereas, tier 1 are well reputed and well established and it's only brand game.
But you wanna really learn, grow, take leadership roles and grow that law firm, go for tier 2.
for instance you have 5 year of experience in pe&vc and suddenly you are willing to shift in house ,be it of any industry ,for sure,no company irrespective of industry will recruit you.
they dont do funding on daily basis.
comapanies need a person who has knowledge of company law,contract,few sebi regulations,few sections of competition act,fema,rbi,etc etc,who is an expert in drafting contracts/agreements.
1-what is the use of brand if you are expert in one area of practice and you are stuck and cannot apply for companies in near future?
2-be it tier1/2/3,after few years of experience,you have connections with various people,people will recognize by your knowledge and skills irrespective of your brand.
3-to the company which you will be applying,they want a person filled of knowledge and skills,what is the use of brand or tier if that persons knowledge is one way?
the reason being-for instance if u join tier 1 in corporate/m&a team,you may or may not get to work in matters pertaining to due diligence,drafting necessary documents/agreements,sitting and giving valid points to your clients,it becomes really tough to initiate in tier 1 .
whereas,if u are in tier 2,there are much smaller teams and less amount of people in each teams,if u have sufficient knowledge and skills,you can sit with senior partner or managing partner and contribute your time and skills and make it worth it and slowly in case if you want to switch from tier 2 to tier 1 you will be easily recruited ,because you have executed each and work involved in that team.
if u are in tier 2 ,say if u have knowledge of corporate/m&a,pe&vc,restructuring and insolvency.
you may give inputs to the team and you will be recognised overall in the the firm and from next time you will be remembered by your clients and your associates within the firm.
you wont get this advantage in tier 1 firms easily,because the number of people involved in each team are much higher as than tier 2 firm.
it is always recommended,to join tier 2 full fledged service law firm,work for 2-3 years then switch as senior associate in tier 1,IF U REALLY WANT TO .