In-house at an IB

Is anybody considering working as an in-house lawyer at an IB? If not, I propose that you should go and peruse general chat or some other equally vacuous section of the forum.

I've been doing a placement at one, and thought I'd make a little summary. And just as a little disclaimer, all the information contained below is empirical in its nature; it is not a statement of gospel truth. But to counteract this - and lend some credence to what I've written - I am under the wing of the No.2 lawyer in one of the biggest IBs in the City, and most of the material contained below finds its origins from conversations with him, rather than unfounded conjecture.

- The job:
Can be quite varied - key areas include M&A, Securities, Compliance and Employment law. The atmosphere isn't quite as pressurized compared to the main-fee earning areas within the IB, and indeed in City law firms. In-house lawyers perform a "middle office" function.

Sadly (for some) court visits are seldom, unless you're in employment law - and are going to court to try and lodge a CCJ with some little tyke of an employee who has been overpaid, and refuses to pay back the IB's monies.

Travel opportunities are pretty good; but although we all want to work in Hong Kong, America and on Grand Turk now, at age 18 - give it a decade and our desire to work abroad will wane! Several people [who I've spoken to] see travelling to exotic climes as an unparalleled chore.

- The hours:

Much better than MC or US firms - even though August is perhaps the worst month in which to make a judgement on hours of work (due to all and sundry going on holiday), the bulk of people work from 9-10am though to 5 or 6 in the evening. Hardly anybody ever comes in on the weekends. People go out after work and enjoy themselves.

- The pay:

Comparable to MC firms - very good.

I don't know what the bonus structure is for UK firms, but having spoken to a US securities lawyer, now in-house at an IB, firms on Wall Street work out bonuses according to the hours you've put in: this isn't the case at IBs.

- The future:

Derivatives lawyers are in demand in the City; and for some of the more niche areas there are literally only a couple of people in the City with the requisite knowledge and skills to perform some pretty vital tasks - so you'll always be in demand.

The Financial Services Authority is by far the most rigorous regulatory regime in Europe, and although they're some way off the US, SEC-model of having shedloads of laws defining what an entity can and cannot do - they're moving in that general direction. The MCI Worldcoms, Parmalats and Enrons of this world have reinforced the need for greater internal policing within corporations; and in doing so, have buoyed the in-house legal depts at IBs.

- The catch:

With the exception of a couple of people, all the guys and girls have worked at the top City firms (chiefly at A&O, Freshfields, White & Case and Simmons), and done well. 5yrs PQE at a top firm is a prerequisite to working in-house at an IB.

You have to carry a Blackberry, and use it religiously, everywhere. Failure to do so will result in you being summarily dismissed.

You must love cricket; and rue the fact that the guys on the trading floor have plasmas showing the Test ad infinitum, whilst you have to make do with the CricInfo text feed.

- Where from here?

I've been instructed that the 'best' course of action is to pick the law electives which are of personal interest to you - nobody is asking you to pick a raft of corporate-related stuff for the sake of it. Do plenty of ECs. Get at least a 2:1 from a top uni { so pretty formulaic stuff. Then go on to do a TC at an MC firm, as they give you a brilliant generic grounding in the law - and perform really well there. Specialise in what you want to specialise in, and if your specialism tallies with in-house law at an IB: look into it.

Postgrad degrees are quite often overrated. Employers are more concerned with tangible experience than people who are looking to pad out their CVs.

It will cost a lot of daddy's and mommy's money to get a QLD, followed by a JD, followed by an LLM, followed by the NY Bar, followed by the BCL. But the reality is that even where I'm working - there are people sitting on several of these things, who do not need them to do their jobs. And all this, whilst others with 'just' their QLD perform much more senior (and better remunerated) tasks. One might consider superfluous postgrad qualifications to be a waste of money, time and effort. However, there are some things which will radically increase your potential for promotion within the firm and starting pay - the example I was given was somebody with a Tax LLM from NYU (ex-Columbia JD), fast-tracked into a very senior position at a US firm in the City within a very short space of time.

I've also been told that spending less than two years at an MC, US firm based in the City, or at a major firm abroad is a waste of time (unless you've got good reason for moving - i.e. being poached to go somewhere else), because employers want to see 2+ years at each of your former employers - rather than little stints which may look good on the surface, but from which you've gained very little in practice.

*The IBs tend to recruit people with 5 Years PQE at an MC or US firm.

* Most of the IBs have close working relationships with a pool of typically 3 to 4 MC firms and US firms in the City. The IBs will take lawyers on secondment, typically for a year or more from the firms which they have close working relationships with - and this is a useful opportunity to gain valuable experience and a feel for the job.

Hope this was helpful.

And if anybody wants to direct any questions to in-house lawyers at a top IB, then you can do so through this thread. :smile:

Reply 1

mobb_theprequel

No probs.

Reply 2

octanethriller

Very informative post there mobb.

I do actually have a question: would an IB look more favourably at someone who is qualified in 2 legal jurisdictions (in this case English law and French law) than someone who was only qualified in one?

Reply 3

mobb_theprequel

octanethriller

Apologies for the late reply. I don't know the answer to your question - as I haven't posed it (in this context) myself; but, as promised, I will refer it to somebody in a better position to comment than myself and post a response in due course.

Reply 4

chalks

Clearly Mobb has the inside track on this and his contact will hopefully be able to give you guidance on the French law issue. However, be careful of assuming that you will be "qualified" in 2 jurisdictions following your English/French law degree. You won't be qualified as an English lawyer until you've completed your TC. I don't know what the French requirements are but I imagine they will be similar i.e. you are not qualified/admitted etc until you have done some further practical training after your undergrad degree.

My view is that the fact of studying a particular subject (French law) will not, on its own, be massively attractive to employers as it will not be a skill or ability that they can use. Quite simply, you won't be in a position to provide in-house French law advice to the IB in the absence of a qualification enabling you to do so. I would have thought that an IB will be looking for other skills - primarily commerce/economics based, hence their interest for strong post-qualification experience at the MC firms or elsewhere.

Mobb may prove me wrong. If so, I take it all back! In any event, my apologies for banging on about this as I have on a couple of other threads. My concern is to make sure that prospective students understand that the joint English/French law degree will not magically open doors to employment.

Chalks.

In-house at an IB

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you