Question Concerning Tax Law and Callbacks
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:24 pm
Background: I'm a 2L, looking to work in Texas. 4 upcoming biglaw (none with Texas big 3) CB's through OCI; highly unlikely that I'll have more than 5 CBs. My number one priority for these CBs is, as you can imagine, to find a job regardless of what practice group I'll be thrown into. During screeners, I played the "I don't know whether I want to litigate or do transactional work, but I'm ready to be flexible based on the firm's needs" card. In reality, I want to specialize in whatever practice group will get me a job and keep me employed for the next 40 years. In summary, Primary goal=find job now; Secondary goal=job security later. With that in mind, I'd appreciate any advice on the following questions:
1) Using Andrews Kurth Houston as an example (roughly 8 tax partners; another 8 tax associates), would I be damaging myself by suggesting an interest in tax? My concern is that by indicating an interest in tax, I may pigeonhole myself into being a "tax guy," and later find out that the firm is not presently looking for tax associates.
2) My primary rationale for considering tax law is based on advice given by a biglaw partner who believes that the relative scarcity of tax attorneys makes them more valuable to firms than comparably talented general corporate/litigation attorneys. Is this advice an accurate reflection of the value of tax attorneys? If possible, try to answer ignoring the additional implications of (1) needing a tax LLM and (2) the possibility that I might be "better" or "worse" at practicing tax law than corporate law/litigation.
3) Simplifying question 2: Who is more valuable--a tax attorney with 8 years biglaw experience who doesn't make partner or a corporate attorney with 8 years biglaw experience who doesn't make partner.
Thanks
Edit to add question 3
1) Using Andrews Kurth Houston as an example (roughly 8 tax partners; another 8 tax associates), would I be damaging myself by suggesting an interest in tax? My concern is that by indicating an interest in tax, I may pigeonhole myself into being a "tax guy," and later find out that the firm is not presently looking for tax associates.
2) My primary rationale for considering tax law is based on advice given by a biglaw partner who believes that the relative scarcity of tax attorneys makes them more valuable to firms than comparably talented general corporate/litigation attorneys. Is this advice an accurate reflection of the value of tax attorneys? If possible, try to answer ignoring the additional implications of (1) needing a tax LLM and (2) the possibility that I might be "better" or "worse" at practicing tax law than corporate law/litigation.
3) Simplifying question 2: Who is more valuable--a tax attorney with 8 years biglaw experience who doesn't make partner or a corporate attorney with 8 years biglaw experience who doesn't make partner.
Thanks
Edit to add question 3