Lawyers generally make terrible VCs.

VCs need to know how to take measured risks. 95% (not 100%) of lawyers simply identify risk. They have no idea how to help you really measure this risk, and advise on which risks to really take. So this is a terrible match for the profession.

However, there’s a subset of this 5% where being a lawyer can help.

Being a corporate lawyer in the right scenarios (with top startups like Ted represented), can help give you an education every bit as good and potential much, much better than being a VC associate/principal. The Top 5% of start-up lawyers both get to see 30–100+ start-up scenarios play out across their careers, observe 30–100+ boards, and get to be the confident to make of their top CEOs.

You’ll never get to see this in almost any other professional.

And a VC associate only gets exposure to a handful of start-ups, and basically never as a CEO’s confidant.

The problem with all this as a great, risk-recommending start-up/corporate lawyer you do learn what makes a great CEO, a good management team, a strong executive, a strong board … but it’s not great training for what makes a good start-up work at a business level.

Some of those Top 5% can figure that part out.

The earlier-stage you go, the more you can hack it in the beginning. Because the more really you are betting on great teams.

View original question on quora

Related Posts

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This