How would you go about answering why transactional law and not investment banking?
As a future trainee at a US firm with a strong transactional focus, I’ve come across this question (or variations of it) quite a lot, and the strongest answers I’ve seen tend to do three things well.
Firstly, they acknowledge the overlap. Transactional law and investment banking both sit at the heart of deals, involve intense workloads, and require strong commercial awareness. Recognising this upfront shows you’re realistic about what the work actually looks like.
Secondly, they demonstrate a clear understanding of the distinction between the roles. Interviewers want to see that you understand lawyers and bankers do fundamentally different things on the same transaction. Lawyers act as advisers and problem-solvers, focusing on structuring, legal risk, negotiation and drafting, while bankers concentrate on valuation, financing and driving commercial execution. You don’t need technical depth, just clarity.
Thirdly, they explain why law genuinely appeals more. This is where the focus shifts back to personal fit. Many strong answers touch on enjoying analytical and detail-driven work, preferring an advisory role with ongoing responsibility rather than a revenue-driven one, and being interested in being involved throughout the lifecycle of a transaction (for example, from the early structuring discussions, through due diligence and negotiation, and then seeing the deal through to signing and completion). You can lightly anchor this to relevant experiences, but the emphasis should be on reasoning rather than credentials.
I’d finish by reinforcing that your interest in transactional law comes from a genuine understanding of what the role involves and a considered comparison with investment banking. The aim is to leave the grad rec team with the sense that this is a deliberate, well-informed choice rooted in how you like to think, work, and add value on deals, rather than a default option. Framed this way, the answer demonstrates clarity of motivation and long-term commitment, which is ultimately what this kind of question is testing.
I hope this helps, feel free to DM me!
Firstly, they acknowledge the overlap. Transactional law and investment banking both sit at the heart of deals, involve intense workloads, and require strong commercial awareness. Recognising this upfront shows you’re realistic about what the work actually looks like.
Secondly, they demonstrate a clear understanding of the distinction between the roles. Interviewers want to see that you understand lawyers and bankers do fundamentally different things on the same transaction. Lawyers act as advisers and problem-solvers, focusing on structuring, legal risk, negotiation and drafting, while bankers concentrate on valuation, financing and driving commercial execution. You don’t need technical depth, just clarity.
Thirdly, they explain why law genuinely appeals more. This is where the focus shifts back to personal fit. Many strong answers touch on enjoying analytical and detail-driven work, preferring an advisory role with ongoing responsibility rather than a revenue-driven one, and being interested in being involved throughout the lifecycle of a transaction (for example, from the early structuring discussions, through due diligence and negotiation, and then seeing the deal through to signing and completion). You can lightly anchor this to relevant experiences, but the emphasis should be on reasoning rather than credentials.
I’d finish by reinforcing that your interest in transactional law comes from a genuine understanding of what the role involves and a considered comparison with investment banking. The aim is to leave the grad rec team with the sense that this is a deliberate, well-informed choice rooted in how you like to think, work, and add value on deals, rather than a default option. Framed this way, the answer demonstrates clarity of motivation and long-term commitment, which is ultimately what this kind of question is testing.
I hope this helps, feel free to DM me!