Why not Investment Banker or a Business Consultant?

[SameerS]

Hey guys,

This is perhaps a very common question yet it is so difficult. I was wondering if perhaps anybody can share their insights as to how to tackle this question?

 

[Kazam]

This may be a stupid point but...the law?

I just focus on my interest in the law (as this strikes me as the big differentiator).

 

[SameerS]

This is how I also thought why being a lawyer differs from everything - Because we are using the law - black letter law - interpreting it in different manners to ensure businesses meet their objectives

Good to see that I was on the same lines.

But this sounds too easy.

 

[Kazam]

I like easy

 

[Sofia]

I have been doing some reading and I think I'm starting to understand both roles in an M&A deal:

• Bankers handle the financial modelling/number crunching side of things and the valuation. They also advise on strategic opportunities for their client (along with consultants)
• Lawyers can also advise on strategic aspects of the deal but this is through the lens of providing legal advice e.g. how can they structure a deal in the best way for their client. In this way, lawyers can add a lot of value to their clients
• Trainee solicitors are usually involved in legal due diligence e..g evaluating the legal risks of a deal whereas bankers might be involved in financial due diligence - although that's usually where accountants/consultants do.
• Lawyers draft the documents for the acquisition to make sure it is legal - this is crucial for the execution of the deal

I think lawyers are often seen as being secondary to a deal, but I don't think that's necessarily true. Lawyers can use the law to give clients a competitive advantage and are crucial to executing a deal/minimising the risks. I think that's the kind of thing we can talk about what we're interested in.

I posted this before, not sure if it helps!

 

[SameerS]

This is exactly what I was looking for

THANK YOU !!!! You are awesome.

 

[Sofia]

Yaay!!