Interest in corporate or tax law - JD/MBA? Forum

[Great Satchmo]

I'm looking to get into corporate/business/tax or some other broad area of law (open to whatever grabs me in this arena).

I know non-T14's and non-top business schools aren't worth the money, but putting that aside:

Will an JD/MBA, while focusing on corporate law or tax law be of help? My assumption is that it would help in these areas, and if it can be done with one extra year, it may be worth it for employability, right out of school as well as in the following career path, as well as enjoying have a broad education in law (corporate or tax) and business.

Thoughts?

[Great Satchmo]

Anyone?

[FullThrottle]

As someone who is interested in corporate and tax law, my suggestion is to talk to people working in the field for advice/direction.

[Renzo]

Tax and corporate are distinct enough that this is really two questions. There's definitely no help if you want to do tax; rather than an MBA you'd be better served with a tax LLM. The conventional wisdom on JD/MBAs is they can help OR hurt for corporate law. There's the fear that a JD/MBA won't like law and will split to go into business, so firms want some reassurance that you'll be around for a while.

[rando]

Tax and corporate are distinct enough that this is really two questions. There's definitely no help if you want to do tax; rather than an MBA you'd be better served with a tax LLM. The conventional wisdom on JD/MBAs is they can help OR hurt for corporate law. There's the fear that a JD/MBA won't like law and will split to go into business, so firms want some reassurance that you'll be around for a while.

+1

From what I hear, most firms believe (rightly so) that an MBA is a soft education with no real fundamental benefit to their practice. The thought is any financial acumen you may lack from not having the coursework can easily be learned at the firm (or on your own) in a year.

[Renzo]

Tax and corporate are distinct enough that this is really two questions. There's definitely no help if you want to do tax; rather than an MBA you'd be better served with a tax LLM. The conventional wisdom on JD/MBAs is they can help OR hurt for corporate law. There's the fear that a JD/MBA won't like law and will split to go into business, so firms want some reassurance that you'll be around for a while.

+1

From what I hear, most firms believe (rightly so) that an MBA is a soft education with no real fundamental benefit to their practice. The thought is any financial acumen you may lack from not having the coursework can easily be learned at the firm (or on your own) in a year.

No firms require any sort of economic of finance training to do deal work. Your role as new associate will be so droll for the first few years you'll have plenty of time for OTJ learning/training.

[Rand M.]

Tax and corporate are distinct enough that this is really two questions. There's definitely no help if you want to do tax; rather than an MBA you'd be better served with a tax LLM. The conventional wisdom on JD/MBAs is they can help OR hurt for corporate law. There's the fear that a JD/MBA won't like law and will split to go into business, so firms want some reassurance that you'll be around for a while.

+1

From what I hear, most firms believe (rightly so) that an MBA is a soft education with no real fundamental benefit to their practice. The thought is any financial acumen you may lack from not having the coursework can easily be learned at the firm (or on your own) in a year.

While all of this is definitely true, it is worth remembering that a lot of firms offer bonuses (20k-30k) to people with MBAs. They also allow you to start as a second year associate, like they do for people who clerk for a year. That has always suggested to me that they probably give it at least some weight. Don't know...

[Renzo]

Tax and corporate are distinct enough that this is really two questions. There's definitely no help if you want to do tax; rather than an MBA you'd be better served with a tax LLM. The conventional wisdom on JD/MBAs is they can help OR hurt for corporate law. There's the fear that a JD/MBA won't like law and will split to go into business, so firms want some reassurance that you'll be around for a while.

+1

From what I hear, most firms believe (rightly so) that an MBA is a soft education with no real fundamental benefit to their practice. The thought is any financial acumen you may lack from not having the coursework can easily be learned at the firm (or on your own) in a year.

While all of this is definitely true, it is worth remembering that a lot of firms offer bonuses (20k-30k) to people with MBAs. They also allow you to start as a second year associate, like they do for people who clerk for a year. That has always suggested to me that they probably give it at least some weight. Don't know...

Really? What firms? I'm not saying it's false, but none of the JD/MBAs I know ever mentioned a bonus of a year's credit, so I'm skeptical.

[Rand M.]

I am going to post back with a link shortly.

EDIT:

I was wrong about the bit about moving up a class year. I thought I had seen that somewhere ( I am almost certain that I have seen that on some firm's website). Either way, here is the bit about bonuses, which I guess was the less controversial bit about what I said. My only point was that firms seem to have some respect for it if they are willing to offer a bonus. An MA in anything wouldn't garner that.

On the law school side, the benefits are more immediate and more tangible. Most top law firms (notable exceptions include: Cravath, Paul Weiss, and Latham Watkins) pay a JD/MBA bonus that is equitable to a low-level federal clerkship bonus ($15K-$30K), and many will start an incoming associate with a JD/MBA at a second-year salary. (Note: very few firms will consider you as a second year associate for partner track simply for having a JD/MBA, which distinguishes it from a clerkship "bump".)

http://blog.veritasprep.com/2009/02/pro ... ances.html

--LinkRemoved--

[Renzo]

I am going to post back with a link shortly.

EDIT:

I was wrong about the bit about moving up a class year. I thought I had seen that somewhere ( I am almost certain that I have seen that on some firm's website). Either way, here is the bit about bonuses, which I guess was the less controversial bit about what I said. My only point was that firms seem to have some respect for it if they are willing to offer a bonus. An MA in anything wouldn't garner that.

On the law school side, the benefits are more immediate and more tangible. Most top law firms (notable exceptions include: Cravath, Paul Weiss, and Latham Watkins) pay a JD/MBA bonus that is equitable to a low-level federal clerkship bonus ($15K-$30K), and many will start an incoming associate with a JD/MBA at a second-year salary. (Note: very few firms will consider you as a second year associate for partner track simply for having a JD/MBA, which distinguishes it from a clerkship "bump".)

http://blog.veritasprep.com/2009/02/pro ... ances.html

--LinkRemoved--

Fair enough. It still doesn't seem like a great investment to me just for the sake of doing corporate law (the bonus would barely cover tuition at most schools), but I can imagine scenarios where it would be worth someone's time.

[blackmamba76]

I'm also planning to specialize in corporate law and seriously considering going the JD/MBA route hoping that it will give me an edge when I'm being recruited by law firms. I've found the responses so far interesting and look forward to some more that will give me some more insight.