I have a somewhat different view from the others here.
IMO, PE / M&A law firm lawyers have the best exit oppurtunities since general corporate skills are the most useful in-house skills and fund raising and M&A legal (and transaction management) skills are valued by senior management since that's the time when they work the most closely with lawyers.
Admittedly, M&A specific in-house roles are fewer than general roles; but if you work in a growing start-up / company, then fund raising and M&A (big and small) are a fairly regular affair. In the start-up I worked in for a short period of time; I was responsible for 2/3 acquisitions, 2/3 debt and equity fund raising events, and 1/2 corporate re-organisation activities. I worked alone on the smaller acquisitions and did the entire work (other than the due diligence) since, with the budget, we would have got a terrible firm. This ensured that my PE / M&A skills didn't rust when I was in that start-up - although I wasn't as clued-in to FEMA, etc. during that time.
I agree with what someone else said that the golden exit oppurtunity is working with a PE / VC fund since that allows you to continue working on transactions (which is more enjoyable than usual in-house compliance work to many, including myself) and don't have to do the more unpalatable parts. However, positions in funds don't come up often and, when they do, the competiton is high. I have worked in a VC fund and I can tell you that it is the best middle ground - and you get that sweet carried interest.
On the other hand, fund formation law firm lawyers don't have skills which transition easily to in-house roles. Fund formation is not a skill set required for regular in-house positions and no PE / VC fund needs fund formation lawyers since that is a one-time event for each fund (and even with multiple active funds, it is still a skill required once every 2/3 years). So, fund formation is quite limiting from an exit standpoint.
I also disagree with your assumption that fintech, TMT, and related fields have the best exit opportunities. In my opinion, having worked in a tech start-up, for the most part, law firm lawyers aren't as clued in as the in-house lawyers on the specific issues dealing with their business area since while the firm lawyers only occasionally advise on that business.
If I was starting out in a law firm today, I would still choose PE / M&A as my practice area - it is the least repetitive amongst the non-litigation practice areas since you keep working on new industries and each transaction is a little different from the previous one. You just need to survive the first few years when all you do is due diligences - and if you join a smaller law firm, you will get to work on documentation far sooner (like the first year, rather than the third or fourth year in a big law firm).
Here's what I mean, unlike some of the more functional pieces of law (TMT, labour laws etc.), there isn't that much demand for PE lawyers in-house. The reason is because, most of the execution for transaction is done by law firms (hence the many many teams of PE / M&A lawyers in law firms) - and the in-house folks job is to really coordinate / manage the work and interface internally (even if that).
What this leads to is that the in-house teams in funds / investment houses are generally small compared to a corporate house. The biggest in-house PE team in India is unlikely to be more than 10-20% of the size of a decent in-house team in a large corporate.
That leads to a situation where two things happen: (a) lots of supply in the market for PE lawyers looking to quit law firms and move in-house, and (b) very very limited opportunities for in-house lawyers in PE employers.
This problem becomes more exacerbated as you grow more senior btw. So if you want to make the shift do it ASAP - if you can get it. For example, at the GC level, there are maybe a grand total 10-20 roles in the whole industry - and almost nobody who gets the job quits it (because duh).
I know transitioning into inhouse is very easy from a law firm if you are practicing fintech, TMT or related fields. What is the scenario for PE lawyers practicing in law firms? Are there inhouse opportunities for PE lawyers?
IMO, PE / M&A law firm lawyers have the best exit oppurtunities since general corporate skills are the most useful in-house skills and fund raising and M&A legal (and transaction management) skills are valued by senior management since that's the time when they work the most closely with lawyers.
Admittedly, M&A specific in-house roles are fewer than general roles; but if you work in a growing start-up / company, then fund raising and M&A (big and small) are a fairly regular affair. In the start-up I worked in for a short period of time; I was responsible for 2/3 acquisitions, 2/3 debt and equity fund raising events, and 1/2 corporate re-organisation activities. I worked alone on the smaller acquisitions and did the entire work (other than the due diligence) since, with the budget, we would have got a terrible firm. This ensured that my PE / M&A skills didn't rust when I was in that start-up - although I wasn't as clued-in to FEMA, etc. during that time.
I agree with what someone else said that the golden exit oppurtunity is working with a PE / VC fund since that allows you to continue working on transactions (which is more enjoyable than usual in-house compliance work to many, including myself) and don't have to do the more unpalatable parts. However, positions in funds don't come up often and, when they do, the competiton is high. I have worked in a VC fund and I can tell you that it is the best middle ground - and you get that sweet carried interest.
On the other hand, fund formation law firm lawyers don't have skills which transition easily to in-house roles. Fund formation is not a skill set required for regular in-house positions and no PE / VC fund needs fund formation lawyers since that is a one-time event for each fund (and even with multiple active funds, it is still a skill required once every 2/3 years). So, fund formation is quite limiting from an exit standpoint.
I also disagree with your assumption that fintech, TMT, and related fields have the best exit opportunities. In my opinion, having worked in a tech start-up, for the most part, law firm lawyers aren't as clued in as the in-house lawyers on the specific issues dealing with their business area since while the firm lawyers only occasionally advise on that business.
If I was starting out in a law firm today, I would still choose PE / M&A as my practice area - it is the least repetitive amongst the non-litigation practice areas since you keep working on new industries and each transaction is a little different from the previous one. You just need to survive the first few years when all you do is due diligences - and if you join a smaller law firm, you will get to work on documentation far sooner (like the first year, rather than the third or fourth year in a big law firm).
Here's what I mean, unlike some of the more functional pieces of law (TMT, labour laws etc.), there isn't that much demand for PE lawyers in-house. The reason is because, most of the execution for transaction is done by law firms (hence the many many teams of PE / M&A lawyers in law firms) - and the in-house folks job is to really coordinate / manage the work and interface internally (even if that).
What this leads to is that the in-house teams in funds / investment houses are generally small compared to a corporate house. The biggest in-house PE team in India is unlikely to be more than 10-20% of the size of a decent in-house team in a large corporate.
That leads to a situation where two things happen: (a) lots of supply in the market for PE lawyers looking to quit law firms and move in-house, and (b) very very limited opportunities for in-house lawyers in PE employers.
This problem becomes more exacerbated as you grow more senior btw. So if you want to make the shift do it ASAP - if you can get it. For example, at the GC level, there are maybe a grand total 10-20 roles in the whole industry - and almost nobody who gets the job quits it (because duh).
Its great if you transition into mutual funds but they prefer CS due to the highly compliance oriented regime