The scope of work will depend on the fund and the lawyer working in the fund. You can take a more passive role if you're so inclined or you can take an active role where you review all documents and are a part of all negotiations. I can recall more than one GC who was properly involved in deals, where they added value to their fund, and I respected those lawyers more than the other GCs who were passive and didn't understand anything about the fund. Hence, I prefer to be actively involved in deals and my opinion / sign-off is sought on all transactions being done by my fund.

The fun of transactional work, in my opinion, isn't about doing due diligences or drafting agreements - it is to problem solve technical and human issues as and when they emerge in the deal. Working in-house in a fund is more of this than redlining documents or undertaking the due diligence.

I only applied for in-house fund roles when I was working at a job that I was happy with in terms of work and personal life. This is important since I wasn't in a hurry to jump ship and hence could wait it out for more than 1.5+ years. Interviews are a hit-or-a-miss events, so you have to keep trying to see where you fit and what you like.

The money isn't standard across funds for many reasons, including fund size (which impacts opex and management fees) and fund managers not having any benchmark for legal hires.

As for myself, I am getting about 20/25% lesser than my equivalents in a law firms (without considering the carry), however, my hours are much better, I'm on the client side, and the work is far more interesting than law firm work. I get to be fully involved in the investment decision making process and learn from my investment colleagues how they think about their work. I'm also no longer in Mumbai, so equalising for rent and other expenses, I'm not too far behind what I was making earlier.

Once I spent a few years in the profession, I found that working a job that I found interesting was far and away more important than getting paid top dollar. A lot turns on what you find interesting, I suppose. I always found this side to be more interesting, it has a wider canvas, so to speak.

Once carry is factored in, and assuming a decent (but not steller) return, I should get more than my average equivalents in law firms on a time-value of money basis, but not as much as the known-name partners.

Does that answer your question?

The pe transactional work is not done in house in any fund. It is outsourced for a reason. All negotiations and transactional documentations are done with a law firm there. In house lawyers in the fund focus on compliance and other legal tasks (poa, employment agreements, lease/rent agreements, contracts, being in contact with the lawfirm for the documents)

DMD Advocates used to be in quite a few Matrix Partner representations and it seemed like they do pay for a good value proposition. But there are just too many firms pitching low costs to the same big ticket PE/VC funds, making you easily replaceable in such a cutthroat market. Its become just like Capital Markets where the meatier mandates vis-a-vis BRLMs already have their set advisors in place and the only factor altering such a puzzle would be by cutting costs and quicker turnaround.

The work is a lot more fun than working in a law firm. I personally find PE work - and thus I work in a PE fund - more interesting than VC work in terms of portfolio companies and legal documentation and challenges, but I think many will find VC start-ups to be more interesting and engaging.

.