Jump to content
Douglas31

Who is more Marketable? Corporate Lawyer or Securities Lawyer?

Recommended Posts

Particularly, I am wondering if a young associate is more marketable who practices corporate law (mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, etc) vs a young associate who practices securities law. Relatedly, I was wondering the potential promising exit options for both scenarios. (In house, executive positions, business/start up options, governmental, other ones I'm not thinking of?)

I had the impression that a corporate lawyer would have a more broad skillset and could have more flexibility in post law options, however I am now seeing/hearing, that securities lawyers may be more coveted and may be more valuable for in house positions? Can someone comment on this?

I like both areas of practice and am trying to see where both type of practices could potentially lead if I decide to leave law at some point.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an articling student I do not think I can comment on the differences in marketability, but I will say that, at least at my firm, there is not as clear a divide between securities and corporate lawyers as one might think. Many of the lawyers who I would classify as "primarily securities" lawyers do some corporate work, and vice versa.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Securities lawyers are corporate lawyers who specialize in securities law. A securities law can more often than not do a corporate lawyer's job. Not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question is suffering from the ambiguity of the meaning of "corporate lawyer" - it can have different meanings in different contexts (e.g., as Rashabon points out, in one sense of the meaning, all securities lawyers are corporate lawyers but not all corporate lawyers are securities lawyers.)

What do you mean by corporate law?

I ask because you list two pretty distinct areas of law as examples: M&A and restructuring.

Assuming that by "restructuring" you mean bankruptcy and insolvency, and not other types of restructurings, like tax driven corporate re-orgs, which are also distinct from each other.

If it helps, exit options for all corporate lawyers (including securities lawyers) seem to be pretty good.

 

 

 

Edited by conge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, conge said:

I think the question is suffering from the ambiguity of the meaning of "corporate lawyer" - it can have different meanings in different contexts (e.g., as Rashabon points out, in one sense of the meaning, all securities lawyers are corporate lawyers but not all corporate lawyers are securities lawyers.)

What do you mean by corporate law?

I ask because you list two pretty distinct areas of law as examples: M&A and restructuring.

Assuming that by "restructuring" you mean bankruptcy and insolvency, and not other types of restructurings, like tax driven corporate re-orgs, which are also distinct from each other.

If it helps, exit options for all corporate lawyers (including securities lawyers) seem to be pretty good.

Agree with all of this. "Corporate" lawyers (as distinct from securities lawyers) also generally only practice private M&A (or help out on a pre/post-closing reorg from an M&A deal). Public M&A is largely practiced by "securities" lawyers (who can do private M&A, because there's no magic to it compared to public M&A).

A securities lawyer isn't exclusively a capital markets/corporate governance specialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, conge said:

I think the question is suffering from the ambiguity of the meaning of "corporate lawyer" - it can have different meanings in different contexts (e.g., as Rashabon points out, in one sense of the meaning, all securities lawyers are corporate lawyers but not all corporate lawyers are securities lawyers.)

What do you mean by corporate law?

I ask because you list two pretty distinct areas of law as examples: M&A and restructuring.

Assuming that by "restructuring" you mean bankruptcy and insolvency, and not other types of restructurings, like tax driven corporate re-orgs, which are also distinct from each other.

If it helps, exit options for all corporate lawyers (including securities lawyers) seem to be pretty good.

 

 

 

When I say Corporate, I mean M&A and Corporate reorgs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that a securities lawyer can do M&A and corp reorgs, but a corporate lawyer can't do securities law. Securities law seems more versatile 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Douglas31 said:

It seems to me that a securities lawyer can do M&A and corp reorgs, but a corporate lawyer can't do securities law. Securities law seems more versatile 

I don’t think securities law is more versatile, so much as securities is a specialized subset of corporate and that specialization allows for both more and less specialized work. 

At least that’s what I’ve taken from this conversation. I don’t even really know what a security is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know just enough about this topic to know that every piece of advice above is deficient in some way. 

  • Like 8
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t seems to me that a securities lawyer can do M&A and corp reorgs, but a corporate lawyer can't do securities law. Securities law seems more versatile



Not true. Many corporate lawyers do both M&A as well as securities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t M&A often involve giving advice on how to distribute/deal with securities? There would seem to be overlap between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 5:35 PM, Douglas31 said:

It seems to me that a securities lawyer can do M&A and corp reorgs, but a corporate lawyer can't do securities law. Securities law seems more versatile 

No. 

 

IMO, if you're a securities lawyer, man oh man will you need those exit options. (of course, there a few, very few, who actually enjoy it. However, they present as "on the spectrum", in my experience). 

 

 

Edited by QuincyWagstaff
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, providence said:

Doesn’t M&A often involve giving advice on how to distribute/deal with securities? There would seem to be overlap between the two.

Public M&A does, which is why securities lawyers tend to take the lead on public M&A transactions. Private M&A typically does not and corporate lawyers that don't have securities law experience tend to wing it by ramming everything through the private issuer or accredited investor exemption if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, QuincyWagstaff said:

No. 

 

IMO, if you're a securities lawyer, man oh man will you need those exit options. (of course, there a few, very few, who actually enjoy it. However, they present as "on the spectrum", in my experience). 

 

 

This. I am a corporate lawyer but opted out of securities work years ago for this reason. I think it might get a bit more interesting once you’re actually handling the prospectus itself but the junior work was tedious. 

“Corporate lawyers” are fairly accurately described in the Canadian Lawyer article - it doesn’t just refer exclusively to securities or M&A lawyers and also includes lending/financial services lawyers and those with a more hybrid practice (e.g. securitization). There are fewer landing spots for securities lawyers, as it is a more specialized practice area and, by definition, a type of in-house lawyer that is really only needed/justified at larger public companies (i.e. one that is required to keep abreast of ongoing compliance requirements and filings) or at a regulator such as the OSC. 

Someone who is an actual “securities lawyer” (i.e. a specialist) would not dabble in reorganizations or M&A work. It isn’t uncommon, however, to see someone who specializes in both securities and M&A work (likely focused on public M&A) or both securities and lending work (likely working on securitizations or corporate debt offerings) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Public M&A does, which is why securities lawyers tend to take the lead on public M&A transactions. Private M&A typically does not and corporate lawyers that don't have securities law experience tend to wing it by ramming everything through the private issuer or accredited investor exemption if needed.

I thought private M&A deals don’t usually involve securities? No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, providence said:

I thought private M&A deals don’t usually involve securities? No?

Not always. If your acquisition is structured as a share purchase rather than asset purchase, or you want to issue securities to the seller, you’ll engage the securities regulatory rules. They can be simple in those scenarios but not always.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Haven't heard from all four (didn't apply to Gardiner), but v interested to know
    • I applied to Osgoode last year and at that point I had not taken the LSAT with accommodations and so I clicked no. Now that I am reapplying for 2019, I am being faced with the dilemma of whether or not I should write that I have been granted accommodations on my LSAT. Will this effect my chances if they know that I had accommodations and performed significantly better?
    • Windsor was the only school I applied to and I had a GPA substantially lower than yours. While I can in no way confirm this, I think that Windsor appreciated my decision to only apply there. I think it makes your stated interest in the school come across as more sincere. I think you definitely have healthy stats. Best of luck, hope to see you in the fall. 
    • This is up to you. I had a GPA lower than yours (currently a 2L student). I took the time to explain it in a way that demonstrated the positive strides I had made to try to improve my GPA. My first two years of undergrad were substantially lower than my latter two. Windsor really does look at everything that you submit, so if you can provide a sincere answer as to why your grades were lacking (if you choose to do so) then it's my impression that they will take that into consideration. Best of luck!
×