I'm an M&A and venture capital lawyer. Can describe the latter in more detail in a separate post when I have time, but this post is devoted to the former.
Goal: M&A is principally the agreement between parent and target (or buyer and seller) in which one company either acquires another or merges with another. When you're doing a "deal," the goal is to arrive at an agreed upon document that both parties sign. Once that document signs, the lawyers are then in charge of moving all the pieces toward closing (i.e., basically making sure seller gets their money and buyer gets their company).
Why is the merger agreement (and its equivalents) so important: I'll alike this to buying a house. Buyer is operating on limited information and doesn't know a lot about the house. A lot of buyer's job will be studying the property to make sure the rough doesn't fall on their head the day after they move in. This process is basically diligence in an M&A deal. But even after diligence, you still don't know anything (either because there's only so much you can find out or because seller doesn't want to give all information). As a result, buyer will ask seller to make certain representations and warranties regarding the company that seller is selling. These will include things like, is the company subject to any litigation? has the company entered into any agreements that might materially effect the company? has the company received notice from its suppliers or vendors that they will discontinue their relationship? is the company in breach of any of its material contracts? Typically, seller will represent that the company is not subject to any of these things. The lawyers will negotiate the particular degree to which the representation is made. For example, in a litigation representation, buyer will ask that seller represent that company is not subject to any present or threatened litigation. Seller might object and say "well, what about oral threats from an employee to his boss that he's gonna sue? we can't possibly know whether the company is threatened with litigation at all times," so seller well revise the representation in the merger agreement to say something like "to its knowledge, company is not subject to any present or threatened litigation."
This is all very simplistic, but basically this is risk allocation between buyer and seller. Lawyers draft the merger agreement to make sure there's an adequate allocation of risk between both parties. Buyer wants as stringent representations and warranties as possible, seller wants looser ones. In the litigation rep example above, suppose buyer wins the negotiation and gets the rep that company is not subject to any litigation. Then, seller might be in breach of the representation when the agreement is signed if the oral threat above was made, and therefore buyer would not be obliged to close the deal (which is huge) or, in cases where there is indemnification, may be able to seek money from seller to cover whatever liability results from ensuing litigation.
So, buyer's goal is to cover their ass. They don't want to be liable for things unless they know what that thing is and can adjust the cash they give to the seller accordingly. On the flip side, seller's goal is to guarantee that the deal closes. In the deal world, if a seller attempts to sell a company, signs a definitive agreement (i.e., a merger agreement), but the deal fails to close, it looks very bad for seller. It scares off other potential suitors, leads to lower valuations, other shit. Prospective buyers will believe that Buyer discovered something in diligence that broke the deal and back off.
In the negotiation process, therefore, seller will attempt to give buyer as few rights as possible to back out of the agreement.
Roles:
So now we know in the very simplistic and shitty example above that buyer and seller want to reach a deal and the lawyers have to draft and negotiate a merger agreement. I'll now describe the roles each lawyer plays in the process. I'll start with the midlevel because the midlevel does the most work.
Midlevel: Partner typically calls associate, a lot of times on a Friday afternoon. Conversation will go like this:
Partner: "Hey Midlevel, we (i.e., client or buyer) just signed a term sheet with target (or seller). Can you put together a merger agreement/stock purchase agreement/asset purchase agreement?" (term sheet is an agreement to negotiate and sign a merger agreement, will contain a basic skeleton of key terms like purchase price, type of consideration (i.e., cash or stock or both), potential big agreement outs (i.e., can buyer back out if it can't secure financing?), a brief summary of interim operating covenants (i.e., what can seller do between signing and closing?), and other misc stuff.
Midlevel: Sure, no problem. I just had court side seats with my wife to watch the Knicks play game 7 of the NBA finals, but i can totally cancel that once in a millennium opportunity so I can draft this agreement for you.
Midlevel reviews the term sheet (in many cases, midlevel will have assisted partner in drafting and negotiating term sheet). Depending on the type of transaction, midlevel will look through previous deals he's done for client to find a precedent merger agreement that he's done for that client (this is good because client is familiar with the form), that's similar to the structure of the deal (i.e., if it;s a stock deal, midlevel will look for a stock purchase agreement), will try to find something "buyer" friendly (i.e., fairly all encompassing reps, strict interim operating covenants, and many opportunities for buyer to back out).
Midlevel then conforms precedent to terms of term sheet. Depending on how close the precedent already is, this can range from just changing the parties and consideration amounts (rare) to that plus+adjusting the reps and warranties to something buyer friendly, adding in deal specific concepts like preventing the out-going CEO of the selling company from working for a competitor for a specific period of time or soliciting employees of the then acquired company. If company is a healthcare company, for example, that deals with a lot of patient information, midlevel might also add in a representation regarding privacy (i.e., that target has complied with all laws concerning privacy, etc.).
Midlevel will also have reached out to other members of the firm to help out with portions of the merger agreement. For example, on the IP or ERISA or employee benefits or tax or labor points of the merger agreement, midlevel will want specialists in those departments to review the merger agreement and make appropriate edits.
After doing a basic conformation, midlevel will send agreement to specialists to be revised. Once midlevel receives specialist input, midlevel will then review and input the specialists' stuff. From there, midlevel will send the agreement to a junior associate for basic review and comment (will discuss further below). Once that's done, midlevel forwards agreement to partner. partner reviews and discusses with midlevel. partner will then make various comments to the agreement and midlevel will implement then. midlevel might again send the agreement to partner for review wand comment, but at some point the agreement is "done." midlevel (or partner) will then send to client for review. client will review the agreement and will probably schedule a call to discuss points of the agreement they don't understand, want to change, or process in general. Depending on the sophistication of the client, this process can be extremely painful or extremely quick. Sophisticated clients know key agreement points and zoom into them with laser like focus, direct the lawyers to revise them to how they prefer it (or seek lawyers advice about how they should proceed). Less sophisticated clients will admit that they don't know much and seek a lot of clarification on very basic points. This is great because client concedes ignorance and lawyer can be most useful here. Less sophisticated clients that can't concede their ignorance basically tell the lawyers to revise the merger agreement in the most ridiculous ways possible, and we as lawyers must agree because they're the client. For example, client might gloss over the mechanics of how the target's cash and debt is accounted for in the deal (very important), but fixate on the notice process (rarely negotiated or discussed).
Once client has provided comments and midlevel has implemented them, agreement is then sent to seller's lawyers.
This begins the back and forth between buyers and sellers to get the agreement they want. Sellers will review the agreement and revise it to make it more seller friendly. They'll send the agreement back, and then buyer will do the same.
Sometimes the parties will hop on the phone to discuss various key points that they can't agree on. This whole process can be long and drawn out or it can be very quick. Lot's of factors at play.
Midlevel will negotiate the lower level points of the deal and will draft all revisions to the agreement.
Partner:
Partner negotiates the term sheet to execution. Partner then reviews the merger agreement midlevel produces and revises it per his experience and understanding of the deal. Partner also manages the client on a higher level (i.e., assuring them that x clause is fine or seeking their comfort level on certain other areas). Partner negotiates high level points with senior lawyer of seller. Partner makes very key decisions.
Junior Associate:
1) Will review and revise the definitive agreement above to make sure all defined terms are used in the agreement, to make sure all defined terms are defined, to make sure all section references refer to the right sections to make sure there are no typos, errors, etc.
2) Will negotiate and draft disclosure schedules. Disclosure schedules are ancillary to the merger agreement and primarily concern the reps and warranties above. Suppose buyer discovered some litigation over the course of diligence. If that's the case, seller can't rep to there being no litigation otherwise seller will be in breach of that rep. so seller will ask to schedule the litigation as an exception to the rep. In essence, a disclosure schedule lists exceptions to the rep. Essentially, the rep becomes ("Except for xyz litigation, company is subject to no litigation") or ("except as scheduled on schedule 3.16(b), company is subject to no litigation"). Accordingly, a lot of junior level negotiation is done here. Buyer will want as few exceptions listed as possible. Seller will want as many as possible. Lot's of risk allocation.
3) Will draft ancillary documents to the merger agreement. For signing, this can involve making sure all the requisite corporate approvals are in place to approve the transaction (i.e., board consent, stockholder consent). You might also draft ancillary documents like employment agreements for continuing employees from the target (though this document might be taken out of your hands after you draft it, depending on how heavily negotiated it becomes).
4) Junior will be in charge with coordinating comments and review from specialists and making sure their input is reflected in the merger agreement and schedules.
5) Junior will draft signing checklist (i.e., all shit that needs to get done for signing) and closing checklist (i.e., all shit that needs to get done for closing).
6) Junior will coordinate items for both signing and closing (i.e., prepare signature pages, them out, compile them, keep track of where the various action items are, making sure wire instructions for cash are obtained, making sure stock certificates are issued, etc.).
7) Junior will conduct diligence. This will involve reviewing all of the corporate documentation seller provides and looking for potential issues. Also involves scheduling a call with seller's management to discuss various issues encountered. Scheduling a call canb e difficult because you need to make sure all the specialists on your side are available for the call so they can ask their questions, as well as making sure that the company has everyone on their side who can answer the questions.
Depending on how advanced you are (and how good your bedside manner is), you'll be asked to do the call. If your questions are basic and shitty, the call will be a waste of time for all parties involved. And partner will judge you negatively. A good management call establishes solid rapport with seller management, ensures a good working relationship, and at the same time ferrets information that will provide comfort on various diligence issues encountered during junior's review. Example:
Junior Associate (JA): I noticed that board did not approve the loan made to you in the amount of $5,000,000. why did you avoid board approval for that (accusatory tone)?
CEO: Uhhh... sorry we just forgot to provide the board consent (emails it to associate). Asshole.
JA: I looked in the data room for a board consent approving your loan of $5,000,000 but can't seem to find it. Can you tell me where it might be in the data room, or if it isn't in there, can you send it to me?
CEO: Oh shit, is that not int he data room? Well here it is. I'm really sorry about that.
See how the latter is better than the former? Former assumes wrongdoing. Latter assumes innocent mistake (or even failure on the associate's part), and CEO is more open.
The roles above aren't strict. Junior might delegate some of his tasks to a legal assistant. Junior might take on some of midlevels roles. Midlevel might take on some of partner's roles. It just depends on the deal and skill level of a team. For a Verizon/Vodafone, midlevel will probably be doing a ton more diligence than he or she would like. On a $5,000,000 acquisition of a mom and pop shop, midlevel will be doing everything and will try not to bother partner. In many cases, midlevel will leave most of the work to junior (great learning exercise), and midlevel will act as the partner (great showing of leadership if midlevel wants to make partner).
Your goal as an M&A lawyer should to be able to demonstrate complete autonomy in a deal. If, by the time you're a senior lawyer, you're able to almost fully negotiate all key points and run the entire deal, while leaving the partner to focus on other important things (like going out and bringing in clients), you are considered partner material from a skills perspective