M.B.A. too?

[adlai]

yeah, I'd be interested in obtaining an MBA, except for how I've heard many times that MBA's straight out of undergrad with no business experience is widely viewed as a negative, and how they're really not worth the extra time and money to obtain.

[Uptown *2*L]

What you learn in your first year of MBA (accounting, finance) isn't bunk if you don't have experience with it (i.e., haven't been an iBanker or have a BBA).

IMHO, the MBA greatly increases your exit options when leaving a firm. You'll be more attractive to PE, VC, McKinsey, etc.

The MBA, AFAIK, also helps when you're dealing with clients, many of whom will have MBAs. iBankers, etc. tend to look down on lawyers, but much less so if the lawyers also have an MBA.

NOTE: These observations make the assumption that you are at a T10 Law School, all of which have decent business schools -- though SLS/GSB, HLS/HBS, UCLS/GSB, CLS/GSB are probably the best combos. I know some YLS/HSB grads as well. Northwestern's JD/MBA might be a notable exception from the T10 assumption, but only if you want to stay in Chicago, where it is unbelievably well regarded.

[«ě»]

I think this depends a lot on the firm, particularly the level of prestige.

The majority of the V25 offers signing bonuses for MBAs which can run $10-50k. I've heard Latham (for example) offers $20k.

So they seem to value MBAs enough to give them more money. Of course, this could also just be to make the V25 competitive with PE, iBanking, and consulting.

Yeah that is interesting.  The law firms I talked to which was 3 and all of them were V50 firms said they usually pass over people with JD/MBA's.

That sounds kinda hard to believe really. I can understand many firms not being willing to pay extra for it, but passing over someone because they come in with additional competence seems to be, well, quite retarded.

[«ě»]

You don't really know today if you maybe want to go into business instead 10-15 years down the line. And even if you won't directly need the MBA skills in your job, they're certainly not a disadvantage to have. A huge majority of your clients will be business people, if they can communicate effectively with you in their own language, that will do you much good for example to be a rainmaker for your firm. And perhaps a few years down the line you'd like to start your own company. Or leave law and go into real estate, finance, anything else really. Drop-outs from the legal profession are not uncommon.

[«ě»]

I wouldn't want to work for a company that feels like they have to minimize my exit options to keep me in their threadmill in the first place.

[«ě»]

I would imagine I'd pick the one that seemed the most qualified for the job, but that's just me.

[«ě»]

Ok, I see your point.

To digress the thread just an inch... Can I assume this would mean it's probably not a good idea for me in a job interview to present the fact that I've founded and built a company in the past? In such that they might think I'm likely to quit my job and do so again in the future (which they would be correct in, but that's besides the point)?

[DAVIDPEARSON2006]

If you wanna go to McKinsey, you're much better off w/ an MBA. Mck recruits only from HLS and YLS, and hires maybe 5-7 JDs per year. In any case, consulting makes Biglaw seem like a wonderful, well-paying, pleasant career, IMO.

I met a guy at a recent ASW who had an MBA from Stanford and is now going for his JD. Few law firms will probably question his commitment to the law (I'm assuming he's pretty committed if he's giving up his post Stanford MBA job to go to law school for 3 years -- lots of oppty cost there!).

I was surprised to see on that posted list, however, that some firms only give bonuses to joint JD/MBAs (4 yr program) and NOT those who get their JD and MBA separately (5 yrs). That seems really strange. My guess is that this is a subtle way for firms to discriminate w/o looking snobby -- ie, to make sure that they only give bonuses to MBAs from TOP schools (HBS, Stanford, Penn) as opposed to, say, someone who got their MBA from UFlorida and later got their JD from Penn. The top firms only recruit from the top law schools, which in turn tend to have good business schools. Cuz tt would look tacky if a firm hired two associates from Penn Law but gave a bonus to one associate who had an MBA from Stanford but not to the other who had an MBA from Florida.

Thoughts? 

[«ě»]

Sounds plausible at least.

[HerculePoirot]

After all this discussion, it seems like an MBA is pointless with a JD.  For one, you can take a few graduate level business courses outside of the law school, so you can learn the essentials like accounting and finance.  Besides, "speaking in business people's own language", as somebody aptly put it, probably isn't too hard to do with a little self-study. 

However, I think an MBA might look good on your resume, especially if you start your own company.  It would look good to investors and clients.  But this is something one could get later in life, after they choose to leave the law.  In the end, I do not think it is worth the extra time and money.